|
|
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"
any one thing, that is).
When it was noted that O'Brian had told an interviewer that Dil's death
was a way of punishing Stephen for his dishonourable act in steering
Jack clear of Diana, many of us suspected that this might be, at least
in part, a ruse or a joke by the author: throwing us "off the scent" by
creating an artificial explanation. I have decided this is wrong. What
convinces me is the way the author describes Stephen's state of dress
throughout the central portion of the book (this may have been "done" in
the gunroom already; if so, I apologize).
Please correct me if you think I am way off base here; but it is
beginning to seem pretty obvious! First, there is the "blessed"
interlude during the voyage to India, during which S. finds that his
love for Diana, and his mental image of her as in some way "pure," has
been revived. For much or all of this time, Stephen goes about the boat
stark naked. Then, there is the extended stay in Bombay, while the ship
refits. Stephen wanders at will around the wonderful city, and O'Brian
tells us of his varying types of clothing: "he walked about in a towel,
sometimes in European dress, and sometimes in a loose shirt, hanging
over white pantaloons . . ." When he runs into the mathematical,
pragmatical and disappointing Parsee, he is in European dress; when he
experiences an epiphany (Diana at the sea festival) he is wearing his
long Indian shirt (and being hand-fed by Dil, for fear of staining it).
Then, when he goes to meet Diana in Canning's house, having failed to
apprise Jack of her presence--AND having "bought off" Dil with the gift
of bangles--he is fully decked out in European clothes. It seems as if
the more clothed he is, the worse Stephen's moral state (or his state of
"honor," in that sense we have been talking about)!
And then the clincher: When he goes to duel Canning, having gotten to
this scene drenched with moral ambiguity (the dueling ground that is
isolated but full of people--the "peepul trees"--entered by way of the
doorway between Right and Wrong [thanks Don!]): How is he dressed?
European-style, of course: But he removes his shirt and stands there to
fight in his breeches, *half-clothed*! Again, he is stripped to the
waist when it is time to operate on himself. The removal of the bullet
marks the end of Stephen's "crisis," and I do not find any more
references to his clothing after that point in the book. Q.E.D.?
As for Dil: The question was raised of what common quality she shares
with Diana (Stephen did say he saw one, but did not specify). I think
there are two: #1. Courage (even her detractors are forced to admit
that Diana is a model of courage); and 2. Innocence. Diana is far from
innocent, you will protest; but still, despite everything, Stephen can
see innocence in her. An example of love rehabilitating its object?
Finally: Why did Dil have to die? Well, yes, to punish Stephen (it
may be "awfully Old Testament," but as John B. points out along with
Herodotus, there are worse things than dying at the height of your
happiness; and it was a punishment sent to Stephen, not to her) . . .
but also: Her death, and the callous removal of the bangles from her
arm, *prefigure Stephen's loss of Diana at the very end* (signaled, even
before he read the note, by the ring that she removed from her finger
and placed in the envelope). Am I making sense?
--------------------
Steve Ross
In a message dated 11/19/2001 1:08:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
skross@LSU.EDU writes:
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?
There has been discussion on whether the term parachute was in use at this
time-
2. p. 289:
" 'Yes, sir. Shall I cast off the drag-sail, sir?'
Jack meant it to look as if he was slower than he was- to draw the enemy
closer- It was a ruse.
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?
I would take that "can" to be a typo("can't")- unless there is another
meaning for "I will answer for it" than to "take the blame".
I nominate Steve Ross for post of the day for this delightfully insightful
message.
This was mentioned more or less in passing, but in re-rereading (is that a
word?) p. 185-186, there is a clear explication of Stephen's continuing
feelings for Diana in the wake of the "opera scene":
"No great while after his last sight of her 'prostituting herself in a box
at the Opera' - a warm expression by which he meant consciously using her
charms to please other men - the unreasoning part of his mind evoked living
images of those same charms, of that incredible grace of movement when it
was truly spontaneous; and very soon his reasoning mind began to argue that
this fault, too, was to be assimilated to the long catalogue of defects that
he knew and accepted, defects that he felt to be outweighed if not cancelled
by her qualities of wit and desperate courage: she was never dull, she was
never cowardly. But moral considerations were irrelevant to Diana: in her,
physical grace and dash took the place of virtue. The whole context was so
different that an unchastity odious in nother woman had what he could only
call a purity in her: another purity: pagan, obviously - a purity from
another code altogether. That grace had been somewhat blown upon to be
sure, but there was enough and to spare; she had destroyed only the
periphery; it was beyond her power to touch the essence of the thing, and
that essence set her apart from any woman, any person, he had ever known."
-RD
Jack meant it to look as if he was slower than he was- to draw the enemy
closer- It was a ruse.
Thanks John! I do know Jack's motive for coming about slowly; it is all
of a piece with the drag-sail's intended effect. But I was assuming he
didn't want to miss stays; that is why I asked whether it was really
possible to come about "slowly!"
--------------------
Steve Ross
I think that "Coming about" can mean just going on to the other tack
which can be done slowly, if you wear (equivalent to gybe in a modern
sloop, stern to the wind) rather tacking (bow through the wind). Tacking
a square rig ship would have to be done with a degree of despatch.
Nowadays it is more usual to tack as modern boats are not so easily put
in irons so most people think of coming about as tacking.
There is undoubtedly a maximum time for carrying out a tack - if you are
too slow about it, it simply doesn't work. But Jack's crew would
probably have explored how close they could get to the minimum, and
might need slowing down.
Besides, some of the pre and post manoeuvres could be spaced out without
affecting the actual tack. Certainly a trained observer would realise
Jack was going to tack some minutes before he did so, simply because of
the preparations - sailors going aloft, yards moving etc. If the saliors
were slow and/or they spent time waiting for officers to give the next
order an observer might conclude that the crew was inefficient.
The intention was to space out the orders, I believe, not to slow down
the actual implementation.
--
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:00:29 -0600, Steve wrote:
Wonderful post, Steve!
[good stuff snipped]
And then the clincher: When he goes to duel Canning,
..[snip] he removes his shirt and stands there to
fight in his breeches, *half-clothed*! Again, he is stripped to the
waist when it is time to operate on himself. The removal of the bullet
marks the end of Stephen's "crisis," and I do not find any more
references to his clothing after that point in the book. Q.E.D.?
Didn't he remove his shirt to simplify the outcome in case he was
wounded? Bits of fiber, etc. Otherwise, I find the issue of Stephen's
dress fascinating, and will pay some attention to it when I travel
through the canon for the fourth read. I may even take notes,
unnatural though that seems.
Marshall Rafferty
________
Adam Quinan
I think that "Coming about" can mean just going on
to the other tack
which can be done slowly (snip)
Nah, it's just turning the other cheek (:-)
Ray McP
As Steve recently pointed out: "It seems as if
the more clothed he is, the worse Stephen's moral state (or his state of
"honor," in that sense we have been talking about)! "
The last few weeks have been weeks of great insights.
BATM SPOILER FOLLOWS...
.
That bird! I don't have the book with me, but I bet a groat that, if one were
to closely study American Indian mythology, we'd find that the bird they seek
(and see) is a Spirit Bird of great power.
So of course she can't accept his offer of marriage that day, they being in
that Great Garden, and in a state of innocence.
Charlezzzz, pointing out that this kind of writing actually makes things
easier for the novelist (or for some novelists, anyhow.) It gives a partial
answer to Hemingway's famous question--"What should I have this bastard do
next?" Follow the myth--the answer is partly spelled out there: the path is
open, and the way lies clear.
My friend the classics prof comes through:
There is a play by Terence that we do have, the Roman
comedian yknow, translated from a play by Menander probably, the
Greek comedian, yknow, which we don't have, and I'm afraid that it
really is called the Heauton (oneself) Timouroumenos (tormenting) or,
the Self-Tormentor. Shows that they had complicated psychology and
people with low self esteem even in those days, though I regret to
say that they thought people that tormented themselves and had low
self esteem were, well, funny. Pretty brutal, those ancients.
savage, explosive, obstinate and cantankerous [HMSS 78]
Mary S
Marshall wrote:
Didn't he remove his shirt to simplify the outcome in case he was
wounded? Bits of fiber, etc.
Oh, must you insist on trying to take the fun out of everything? Yes,
of COURSE he had a good reason for doing it. I can't quite see Stephen
saying "I am taking off my shirt because that way, this scene will fit
better into the author's symbolic scheme!"
Everything has a reason. At least in fiction.
--------------------
Steve Ross
Mary S wrote:
There is a play by Terence that we do have, the Roman
comedian yknow, translated from a play by Menander probably, the
Greek comedian, yknow, which we don't have, and I'm afraid that it
really is called the Heauton (oneself) Timouroumenos (tormenting) or,
the Self-Tormentor.
Thank you Mary (gee, you sometimes feel guilty trying to get in a word
or two about POB among all the conversations that are going on, don't
you?)! . . . I mistakenly guessed yesterday that Heautontimoroumenos
might be a Greek poem and was corrected privately by a modest List
member who knew the Terence connection but was too kind to embarrass me
in public. I, however, have no such qualms, and will proceed to go out
on a limb again:
So Stanhope, in the crisis of his fever, not long before his death,
calls to mind an old piece of Latin poetry from his school days. What
does Stephen do, in his own fevered delirium after being shot by
Canning? He not only recalls, but recites, a Latin poem. And not just
any poem either; this one is Vergil's Aeneid, the crown jewel of Latin
poetry. And Stephen recites it all the way _from beginning to end_:
from "arma virumque cano" to Book 12, line 952: "ast illi solvuntur
frigore membra/vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras" (yeah
right! ... well, O'Brian does tell us that he was displaying quite
remarkable powers of recall).
But this is not just there to impress us. As we were discussing
yesterday, "Self-Tormentor" (or Self-Punisher?) seems remarkably apt for
the state in which Stephen finds himself. What about these lines of
Vergil? Well, they start out with "arms and the man I sing;" Stephen
has just shown that he can be a man of arms when it is absolutely
necessary. And at the end, "with a groan at that indignity, his limbs
slackened in the chill of death, and his spirit fled into the gloom
below." The Aeneid has been interpreted as the story of how Aeneas was
transformed from an old-fashioned "blood, guts and glory" Greek-style
hero into a new kind of man, less self-centered, more willing to do his
duty on behalf of Rome. With this passage, is O'Brian saying that
Stephen has undergone a transformation too? I guess I was wrong to say
his "crisis" had passed as soon as he had finished operating on himself;
of course, the period of fever that followed was the climax of the
crisis.
Better shut up now . . .
--------------------
Steve Ross
2. p. 289:
Jack is trying to look like a lubber so he can invite the enemy frigate(s)
to give chase, so he can lead them away from the East India men
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?
What the 'can' as opposed to 'can't'? Well its in the Harper Collins version
too whatever it is. Like Jack some kind of brilient wittism is hovering on
the edge of my mind but that is where it is remaining for the time being!
(Probobly just as well!)
Sam
Sam wrote:
Jack is trying to look like a lubber so he can invite the enemy frigate(s)
to give chase, so he can lead them away from the East India men
I know what you mean, but I can't accept this. Yes, Jack wants it to
look as though the Surprise is slow, to fool the enemy. But it strains
credulity to think he would go so far as to *miss stays* deliberately
(horror of horrors)! Someone else suggested that the spacing out of the
orders had to do with getting all the topmen into position, preparing to
come about, etc.,--but that when it came to actually executing the move,
it would be done fairly efficiently. I am satisfied with this
explanation.
What the 'can' as opposed to 'can't'? Well its in the Harper Collins version
too whatever it is. Like Jack some kind of brilient wittism is hovering on
the edge of my mind but that is where it is remaining for the time being!
Yes, the "can" as opposed to "can't." I guess it is a typo (or a slip
of the pen, seeing as how O'Brian never used a typewriter)!
--------------------
Steve Ross
Someone
else suggested that the spacing out of the orders had to do
with getting all the topmen into position, preparing to come
about, etc.,--but that when it came to actually executing the
move, it would be done fairly efficiently. I am satisfied
with this explanation.
That was me.
Speaking of spacing out orders, I was once told by an officer to "have
your men spaced out around the perimeter, Sergeant Mackay".
So I sent them off to the pub and told them to be quick about it.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:19:57 -0600, Steve Ross wrote:
Oh, must you insist on trying to take the fun out of everything? Yes,
of COURSE he had a good reason for doing it. I can't quite see Stephen
saying "I am taking off my shirt because that way, this scene will fit
better into the author's symbolic scheme!"
Or as Stephen once said, "Don't be pedantical, for all love!" Naw..
we have plenty of fun. I do plan to try to pay attention to Stephen's
mental state in later books when he's sunning himself naked as
Adam, or when he's (very rarely) dressed to the nines.
Everything has a reason. At least in fiction.
You know, I'd be more skeptical of POB's rationales if he hadn't been
so darned methodical. He may have slipped on some of the small stuff,
but he was very, very careful about the bits that mattered to him.
Marshall Rafferty, pondering the brown, knit thing
________
Have just recalled another reference: p. 230-231 of HMSS, where Stephen is
HMSS SPOILER
.
Diana says, "You are certainly unwell; you look ghastly. Take off your
coat. Sit in your shirt and breeches."
"Sure I have never felt the heat so much." He threw off his coat and
neckcloth.
On the following page, Diana continues: "...Lord, how pale you have gone
again. Come, put on a light gown and we will sit in the court for the fresh
air: these lamps are intolerable indoors."
"No, no. Do not move."
"Why? Because it is Canning's gown? Because he is my lover? Because he is a
Jew?"
Stephen then protests that he has the highest esteem for Jews; Canning then
appears, and persuades Stephen to indeed put on a gown, and the three of
them sit in the courtyard...
Seasick, green, squalid and selfish (HMSS p. 357),
Excellent! . . . and then there is the shapeless brown knit thing that he
wears when first coming aboard (IIRC) ...
This is the title of a comic play by the Roman playwright Terence (Publius
Terentius Afer), based upon Greek New Comedy, chiefly the comedies of
Menander: the originals of the plays used by Terence and the other famous
Roman comic playwright, Titus Maccius Plautus, have mostly vanished.
Heautontimoroumenos (The Self-Tormentor) was written c163BC.
If you're thinking of dipping into them - my advice is, don't bother ...
wearisome stuff, upon the whole.
London Lois
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
Al Revzin Wrote:
{big snip . . .}
Jack, most of
the Naval personnel and Sophie remain fairly constant over the Saga. If the
story demands different "constant" characters, POB drops some people out
(Rev.
Martin) and introduces others (Dil). OTOH, Maturin's and Diana's characters
vary
quite wildly, depending on POB's ideas while writing.
Thus, the characters of Diana and Maturin /are/ complex, confusing and
unbelievable, to me, because POB varies them, book to book or even within a
book, as the story in his mind demands --- there is no "standard" Stephen
or
Diana.
Very insightful! I hadn't thought of it this way, but it does fit into
something I have been thinking about, after having first sprained my brain
trying to puzzle out the symbolism of Stephen's different states of dress
in HMSS: By contrast with Stephen's ambiguities, Jack is much more
black-and-white. As far as his clothing is concerned, he is either fully
dressed or stark naked (waking Stephen on deck ready to go swimming) . . .
never anywhere in between, though his "full dress" can be either formal or
informal.
I trust that no Lister over-ate excessively this Thanksgiving.
Thanks . . . I over-ate only moderately; but I did indeed over-eat. Then I
did it again.
Steve Ross
Someone mentioned recently O'Brian's use of a parachute
on page 284, and asked if it was an anachronism for use
in a book of O'Brian's time period:
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Parachute: 2. gen. Any contrivance, natural or
rtificial, serving to check a fall through the air, or to
support something in the air; e.g. the expansible fold of
skin or patagium in the flying squirrel, etc.
1796 STEDMAN Surinam II. 17 These [flying squirrels]
have..a membrane..which when they leap, expands like the
wing of a bat, and by this, like a parachute, they rest
on the air.
I rest the author's case.
- Susan
That was me. Thanks for rising to the task, Susan!
Steve Ross
Naw, rising isn't the right image. Slowly falling,
s'more like it : }
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 22:13:28 EST, Alice wrote:
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 perusing `"The Line of Battle: The Sailing Warship 1650-1840" of
the Conway series I read:
"Quarantine ships were also employed at many ports. These were
generally old men of war, and were known as lazarettos."
I doubt that POB was talking about a ship instead of an island, but
found this interesting nonetheless.
The description of "hospital ships" before and after the Napoleonic
Wars is succinct, but grim. One quote of interest to Stephen, maybe:
"The orlop deck was difficult to ventilate, and was thought
unwholesome for the sick.'" *
*Lloyd and Coulter, Medicine and the Navy, Vol. III
Marshall Rafferty
________
So I'm reading HMSS for the umpteenth time and I come across this line, makes
me smile every time I read it
Early SPOILER
.
"There were times when there was something very young and slightly ridiculous
about Jack; it was a side of him that Sophie loved beyond measure; but no one
looking at him now, or in action, would have believed in it's existence."
What a wealth of information we get about this man with these few words.
Vanessa, loving the stories better every time.
Why did Stephen leave Canning's house through the window? He said "I believe
I will go out this way, if I may: I do not altogether trust your tigers." Was
it the tigers, or Canning, or something else? At the duel: "Gentlemen," said Burke, "you may fire upon the signal." Canning's arm came
up, and along the glint of his own barrel Stephen saw the flash and instantly
loosened his finger from the trigger. The enormous impact . . . Did Canning
wait for the signal, or did he fire before he was supposed to? Someone questioned why Jack was so hostile towards Diana, apart from the usual
reasons. When Dil died, Stephen was completely devastated. Jack knew nothing
of Dil. He knew that Stephen had been to see Diana, and so Jack thought Diana
was the cause of Stephen's total desolation at that time
He fired before he was supposed to. If Stephan had died his second would have
taken the shot, I believe. This is why Jack thinks it was ok for Stephan to kill Canning (though he would
not have done himself). The great sadness about their friendship is that they
are not close enough to discuss this and so Jack never learns that Stephan did
not aim to kill.
Samuel Bostock wrote:
He fired before he was supposed to. If Stephan had died his second would
have taken the shot, I believe.
Don Seltzer
On checking the PC group discussion I find there was little mention of the
duel or discussion of why it was dropped the way it was. But that may be because
it *had* been discussed, fairly recently; the Archives show this question having
been raised as recently as October 2000 (and as early as 1996). In sum, the
sense of the group seems to be that Jack and Stephen tacitly agreed to let the
issue drop [although some lissuns seem to think that, for form's sake, Jack
must have given some sort of apology off-stage]. In the course of a battle scene,
Stephen urges Jack to come below, with the significant words, "here is too much
blood altogether." So, after having been unable (because of the press of events)
to carry out their original plan to duel, S & J find their relationship has
developed to a point that it would be unthinkable to duel at all. All this speculation, however, helps us understand only why the characters
ended up not trying to shoot one another. It still doesn't answer Lois' *original*
question, which was (IIRC) why O'Brian wrote it this way. It seems like an unsatisfying
loose end, at first. But maybe we can interpret it differently? Could it not
be part of O'Brian's ingenious subtlety to "show" us, rather than "tell" us,
how the two men's relationship has developed here? Very different from the proposed
duel near the very beginning of the Canon, where Jack is forced to deliver a
formal (and somewhat stiff) apology to remain on speaking terms with Maturin!
As often, Charlezzz (in the Archives) showed the way: he pointed out how PO'B
signals the evolution in their relationship, by having Stephen address Jack
as "brother" at the critical point. One more point (here I am going out on a limb again): I wonder if the mention
of dueling in M&C, PC, *and* HMSS might not be an intentional unifying theme
that sets off these books as a sort of trilogy (clearly they are separated in
more than one way from the other books in the series). We have already talked
about the many ways in which O'Brian signals the moral ambiguity of Stephen's
duel with Canning. If I am right that Stephen's "moral crisis" is the major
(or one of the major) theme(s) in HMSS, does O'Brian want us to think that,
symbolically, by killing Canning Stephen killed himself or part of himself (after
all, he did talk about how the two men were similar, both being religious/ethnic
outsiders, etc.)? Here again Stephen's recital of Vergil's Aeneid may be relevant:
in the height of his delirium, he quotes the line about how Aeneas impulsively
slew Turnus. For many critics, this has been seen as Aeneas symbolically killing
himself, or at least his "old" self. http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/MAY0198/0588.html
Have fun, all.
--------------------
Re: Susan's questions and comments: I took "I do not entirely trust your tigers."
to mean that Stephen was concerned that Canning, in a rage, might set the tigers
on him... As for Jack's treatment of Diana after the duel, his feelings and his thoughts
on them are made pretty explicit on p. 349-350 of the Norton hardcover: Beneath the anger and his distaste for being there, his mind was filled with
questions, doubts, a hurry of feelings that he could not easily identify. Righteousness,
except where faulty seamanship was concerned, or an offence against Naval discipline,
was unfamiliar to him. Was he a contemptible scrub, to harbour this enmity against
a woman he had pursued? The severity that filled him from head to toe - was
it an odious hypocrisy, fit to damn him in a decent mind? He had gone near to
wrecking his career in his pursuit of her; she had preferred Canning. Was this
holier-than-thou indignation mere pitiful resentment? No, it was not: she had
hurt Stephen terribly; and Canning, that fine man, was dead. She was no good,
no good at all. Yet that meeting under the trees could have taken place over
the most virtuous of women, the world being what it was...he had attacked her
'virtue' as hard as ever he could; so where did he stand? The common cant 'it
is different for men' was no comfort...a tenderness and admiration he had thought
quite dead moved in him... It seems to me that Aubrey is afraid to allow Diana to sail with them because
he is afraid of temptation and further friction between himself and Stephen...thoughts?
If they suspect me of intelligence, I am sure it will soon blow over (TFOW,
p. 184), -RD
Here's another one of the animal analogies I've come to love in O'Brian, at
Diana's residence after Canning is shotL: Jack has come to call on Diana with
Stephen's message for her, and he sees a horseman winding through the trees: "The horseman came in sight again, and his horse into full view: perhaps the
most beautiful animal he had ever seen, a chestnut mare, perfectly proportioned,
light, powerful. She shied at a snake on thye drive and reared, a lovely movement,
and her rider sat easy, kindly patting her neck." Now the chestnut mare, the most beautiful animal Jack had ever seen, who does
that remind you of? And of course the man who gets to pat her perfect neck is,
of course, Johnstone, who will soon be availing himself of similar dominance/patronage
with Diana's perfect neck.
- Susan
Rosemary quotes a passage from HMS Surprise in which Jack undergoes a little
bit of self examination about his response to Diana. Shortly after he asks himself
if he is a scrub, the lady in question tells him he is. "I always knew you were
a weak man, Aubrey,"she said with a look of contempt,"But I did not know you
were a scrub. You are much the same as every man I have ever known, except for
Maturin - false, weak, and a coward in the end." At this point, I don't think Jack is really afraid to have Diana on his ship
because of potential temptation and possible friction between him and Stephen.
(Recall that he has just acquired the means to set his financial affairs in
order and ask Sophie to marry him). I think he is just indulging in the conventional
distaste for the "fallen woman". He has decided that Stephen would be better
off without her and he has the autocratic means to keep them separated for a
while. Diana recognizes this and that is why she calls him a scrub, and because
he recognizes it too, he is tormented by her remark. Later that day,after the
bizarre surgery episode, Jack attends a dinner during which he overhears a conversation
between an old judge and a council member that gives him a sharp taste of what
"society" thinks of the "fallen woman" and also shows him that not everyone
thought Canning was such a fine fellow. The nastiness of the remarks about Diana
causes Jack to defend her and after that his attitude toward her improves appreciably.
At this point it is possible that, if she had asked again, he might have admitted
her to the ship for the return home. Mary A
Very good observation by Mary, where Jack is moved to defend Diana at the
dinner (after questioning whether he is indeed a scrub) and then treats her
with deference upon her next visit to the ship. The changes Jack undergoes
in his attitude toward Diana are one of the many interesting threads weaving
their way through the canon...p. 378, Jack says to Sophie: "Stephen? Lord, sweetheart, what a selfish brute I am - a most shocking
damned thing has happened. He thought he was to marry her, he longed to
marry her - it was quite understood, I believe. She was coming home in an
Indiaman, and at Maidera she left her and bolted with an American, a very
rich American, they say. It was the best thing that could possibly have
happened for him, but I would give my right hand to have her back, he looks
so low." Of course, if Jack had not been such a "scrub" as to refuse her passage with
them, she'd have had no opportunity to bolt with Johnstone. And I love the
bit where she pretends to Stephen that it never occurred to her to ask Jack
for her passage, so as not to cause resentment of Jack in Stephen...
I've just now reread the passage where Maturin has received Diana's letter
with his ring back, and his comments after he has wandered into the
mountains: "To get down - that will be a problem," he said aloud. "Any man
can go up - oh, almost indefinitely - but to go down and down surefooted,
that is another thing entirely." -RD, plateauing at the moment
In a message dated 11/30/01 9:44:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlaktb@HOTMAIL.COM
writes: My own interpretation of this incident is just a little different -- it did
not occur to me that Jack had in mind that Diana was a "fallen woman", but
only that he considered her presence harmful to Stephen's well-being. Thus,
I feel that Jack's motivation was based in friendship rather than
conventional morality. But I might be wrong.
Bruce Trinque
41°37'53"N Say it ain't so, Bruce (that you're wrong). Bruce's view is how I, too, have
interepreted this. Jack seemed to me to be wholly concerned with the effect
Diana was having/would have on Stephen, and thus wanted to keep Diana away
from him for what Jack saw as Stephen's own good. Despite his
conventionality in various ways, Jack never struck me as the type to be too
prudish about associating with "fallen women," and didn't he have naval
friends who did?; like Bruce, it never occurred to me that Jack would be
motivated by such thoughts in this instance.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, at 09:43:46 -0500, Mary A wrote: Jack is merely passing on Stephen's message: "... 'Diana: you must come back
to Europe. The Lushington sails on the fourteenth. Allow me to deal with any
material difficulties: rely upon me at all times. I say at all times.
Stephen.' " Jack mediates on his feelings as Diana reads Stephen's letter. Just as his
"anger and distaste" resolve into "tenderness and admiration" Johnstone
rides up to Diana's door. He realizes she has kept her options open. Diana is being less than honest when she tells Jack, 'Stephen has asked me
to marry him. I could act as a nurse.' Jack must realize he would have heard the news from Stephen had she
accepted his proposal. Perhaps he sees her offer as motivated by pity and
knows it would be anathema to Stephen's pride. Bob Kegel Responding to the discussion of why Jack does not allow Diana to hitch a
ride back to England--
I'll grant that he might have personally disliked Diana for provoking a
duel between Canning, whom Jack liked, and Stephen, whom he loved.
Remember Canning was going to get Jack a big commission for carrying
freight as well. But, another interpretation. Could he not have been afraid to have a
beautiful woman on board a ship full of men? This seems to be a theme with
him, not liking to have beautiful single women on board ship. Certainly if
we consider the results for him in The Far Side of the World and in The
Truelove/Clarissa Oakes, he seems to have been right.
Ruth A.
Yes, I agree with everyone's differing views on this :} Jack turned down Diana's request for passage BEFORE he
sat with Stephen's unconscious ravings and learned the
depth of Stephen's feelings for Diana. Jack's attraction
to Diana was lust, and he knew that Diana played him that
way as it suited her purposes, and he could only
empathize that Stephen's attraction was the same, and
that Diana was playing Stephen that way as it suited her
purposes. At one point, Jack considered that he might have to marry
Diana because of his acts with her, and he figured that
she'd done the same with Diana. Also, Jack believed that
Diana had ruined Stephen's happiness in India, not
knowing that Stephen was really torn up about Dil: Jack
thought that the sadness was all due to Diana. Maybe the Shakespearean passage that P_ asked about was a
nod to Shakespeare for having written "Comedy of Errors?"
Yes, I agree with everyone's differing views on this You've been working in Washington tooooooooo long, Susan! Bruce Trinque I agree, and in two years, four months, and five days
(and counting) I'll do something about that : }
Susan for President!
Ruth Abrams, and many another, has commented on the reason for Jack refusing
Diana passage.
Almost every "reason" given is a good one, and likely. But there's a fine
phrase about the reasons why X does this and does not do that in fiction--at
least in good fiction: "The complexity of multiple motivation." (It even sounds good, orotund,
intelligent, literary, a phrase to be rolled in the mouth.) And it fits us all, don't it? We often do things for more than one reason. Or
two. Or even three. Or...
Charlezzzz, who hopes that this phrase never is used by the simple folk
who say "my theory is good as your theory" when they have little insight to
bring to bear. Just cause motivations can be multiple, or even
adient-avoidant (hey! hey! another fine phrase from Psych 101) that's far
from saying anything goes. But I ramble. And dither. Why? Because...
Susan writes:
Jack's attraction to Diana was lust, and he knew that Diana played him that
way as it suited her purposes, and he could only empathize that Stephen's attraction
was the same, and that Diana was playing Stephen that way as it suited her purposes. I beg to differ.
I don't think Jack ever "knew" he was being played by any woman. We are reminded
throughout the cannon that he is often in over his head with the fairer sex.
He has misgivings about Diana's fickleness, and believes that she was hurtful
to Stephen, and so wishes to protect him. Jack doesn't have the devious streak
that Stephen and Diana share, he's a simple soul and they know it.
V
On 2 Dec 2001, at 12:42, Charlezzzz@AOL.COM wrote:
"The complexity of multiple motivation." (It even sounds good, orotund, For months now I have yearned for a good orotund phrase, Charlezzzz --
of the first meaning, not the second. I get enough of those in church.
Doug Essinger-Hileman There is no indication that Jack knows of the contents of Stephen's note to
Diana when he delivers it. She opens it; the fact that the lines are
"straggling" would indicate that Stephen wrote it himself, in spite of his
wound. There is also no indication that she reads it aloud, and while she
reads it, Jack is standing with his back turned, gazing out the window (at
the previously-mentioned Johnstone on his horse) and thinking the
previously-quoted thoughts about virtue.
From the "straggling" lines I, too, infer that Stephen wrote it with his own
hand. I can't see Jack being anywhere but at Stephen's side so I believe he
probably fetched the pen and paper for him. Note also that when Diana asks for passage on the Surprise he immediately
reminds her "the Lushington sails within the week." Bob Kegel In a message dated 12/1/2001 11:33:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, ruthie@WORLD.STD.COM
writes:
But, another interpretation. Could he not have been afraid to have a beautiful
woman on board a ship full of men? This seems to be a theme with him, not liking
to have beautiful single women on board ship. Certainly if we consider the results
for him in The Far Side of the World and in The Truelove/Clarissa Oakes, he
seems to have been right. I don't believe the situation is the same- yes- he did not like having any
women aboard-( He sneaked out to avoid some captain's wife asking for ride)-
effect on crew- In past events, crew acted very well-( except when \Clarissa
apparently accepted favors and caused jealousy) this would not be the case
with Diana. I think his prime motive was to keep Diana away from Stephen, .
John B
I, too, was struck by the passage below quoted. It having been several years
since I first read this, one of O'Brian's short stories was fresher in my memory
(I think it is the one called "Slope of the High Mountain"). It's one of those
that have very little plot, and a lot of atmosphere. At any rate, the scenario
in HMSS, where Stephen finds he has to make his way down from a cold lonely
hilltop, has a similar feel to it. I imagined both passages must be based on
a real incident in O'Brian's life, where he may have found himself in a similar
situation, one which was apparently fairly nerve-wracking at the time (in the
short story, the protagonist is trapped on a hilltop by a sudden snow, and for
a while it seems as if he will not be able to get down; he fears dying of exposure).
Not sure if there is any important connection here; just putting it out there
FWIW . . .
Rosemary wrote:
I've just now reread the passage where Maturin has received Diana's letter
with his ring back, and his comments after he has wandered into the mountains:
"To get down - that will be a problem," he said aloud. "Any man can go up -
oh, almost indefinitely - but to go down and down surefooted, that is another
thing entirely." -RD, plateauing at the moment
Doug and others quoted from KJV Psalm 104:24-26
O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all:
the earth is full of thy riches. From POB HMSS 6:163:
Mollyhawks, Cape pigeons, petrels,
Don Seltzer
Both the New Revised Standard Version and Tanakh, the translation of
the Jewish Publication Society, use "sport" instead of play. Of
course, it would have been the KJV which would have been contemporary
with Jack and Stephen. Perhaps this is an example of POB not being as
careful of history as he usually is? Or was there an English
translation contemporary to Jack and Stephen that used the word
"sport"? Doug Essinger-Hileman In a message dated 12/4/01 7:56:51, dseltzer@DRAPER.COM writes:
From POB HMSS 6:163 It's actually supposed to be mollymawks. I came across this just the other
day and meant to comment on it, but Kyle has returned - and that's much more
interesting. Alice
Au contraire! Or however you spell it....What's a
Mollymawk?
POB wrote it (or his editors or someone) mollyhawk - which there is no such
bird. (But if you knew it was supposed to a bird, one could easily think
mollyHAWK, not MollyMAWK, doncha think?) Mollymawks are Black-backed Albatrosses, and I think they are called
Mollymawks only in Australia and New Zealand. Elsewhere they're called
Black-backed Albatrosses.
Alice
Ha Ha! I am into the book of the month, albeit some five weeks late. I find
quite funny the legal system in which the Spanish treasure cannot be given
out as prize money since war had not formally been declared. But shouldn't
it then be returned to the Spaniards? Had war been declared before the prize
determination was made and what influence did this have on the decision? Or
was it just standard that the crown would keep all the ill-gotten gains?
Curtis Ruder War was declared shortly after- but the point was- the crown ordered him to
take the gold, which in itself was an act of war- but then bamboozled him out
of his prize money. Blatherin' John B
Thanks y'all for adding in a catch up month before we start TMC! I just finished HMSS. Ah, joy! When I had a pencil handy I was marking a
passage on every other page-- the humor is perfect, but especially the way
the conversations are so utterly real. Jack talking about the guns, while
Stephen is talking about Sophie, both thinking and talking on separate trains
of thought, but it makes a whole conversation. The way, pages, chapters
after a conversation, Jack will respond to a statement or question of
Stephen's, as a tangent to a current conversation. So real. And, most under appreciated-- I never realized what lovely wide, note taking
margins these books have-- easily wide enough for a question mark, a note or
two or a whole series of exclamations. Ah, joy! I shall catch you in January as I started TMC last night-- it will only be my
second reading, as I skipped it last time through.
Sarah
I wrote (under the subject "Hussein"):
Interesting comparisons could be drawn between PO'B's early Indian child-hero
Hussein, and his later child-heroine Dil: I believe I'll develop this a bit
more in a separate post, since it's more a part of the Group Read thread. Basically, the Dil story could be considered as a darker version of the
Hussein story. Both are Indian children, who survive in a dangerous, adult world, by living
on their wits. Hussein can survive and thrive, but Dil is crushed.
Perhaps PO'B's vision has become darker in the 30 odd years between writing
the two stories, or perhaps he is looking at the situation for an Indian
child in a more realistic, less romantic manner. Or perhaps he saw survival
as easier for a boy than for a girl. Speaking of Dil and other PO'B characters, has anyone noticed that her name
is close to Dillon? Some similarities between Dil and Dillon: both are close to Stephen, both
are alive in only a single book, both are killed violently after achieving
their fondest wishes (heroic battle for Dillon the bracelets for Dil) and
seem to die with smiles on their faces. John Finneran
It's been a little while since I read Hussein, but a couple of things
stick out in my memory about it, and they may be relevant here. The
main thing is that, as I think the blurb writer noted, O'Brian shows in
Hussein (as a very young author) how successfully he can recreate for us
a place and time that he knew only by report . . . obvious
Aubrey/Maturin relevance there. The character of Hussein himself I find interesting because he is a
sympathetic protagonist, and yet, to obtain safety and his heart's
desire, he does some thoroughly discreditable things, without even a
hint that he (or the author) might be concerned about the "morality" of
it. I have tried to think of a parallel character in the Aubreyad, but
can't. But I am taken with the parallel with Dil, as John pointed out.
Would Dil have resorted to theft and murder, if the situation required
it? If so, is that because the world she lived in made such things
necessary and excusable? If not, is that because she is a "better
person" than Hussein, or because O'Brian himself had changed in the
intervening years?
and the Dil--Dillon parallel: excellent!
-------------------- Steve Ross The most obvious parallel seems to be Diana. The connection between Dil and
Diana is made explicit by Steven (HMS p. 195 of my paperback copy) - "It is
hard to think of her (Dil's) lively young spirit sinking, vanishing in the
common lot. I shall advise with Diana: I have a groping notion of some
unidentified common quality." I am now almost done with HMS the second time, and the posts this weekend
focusing on the pause between HMS and the later novels have reminded me why
I loved Diana especially during these early novels. She shines in comparison
to Sophie, and it is Dil's innocence aged which flourishes in Diana. She is
not virtuous in the ordinary sense, because virtue itself requires
submission to the morality of the period, and she is simply not subject to
those laws. And one of my favorite things about Diana is how she always
greets Steven. He has been torturing himself for hundreds of pages about how
the first encounter will be, and Diana always just says "Howdy" as if they
had lunch together yesterday. Sophie, on the other hand, is so static in these early novels. I compare her
character at this point to the women in Dostoevsky, who are not characters
in themselves but rather sounding boards for the protaganists. It is not
until later in the canon that she strikes out and becomes interesting to me. Curtis Ruder In a message dated 12-10-01 10:55:56 AM, skross@LSU.EDU writes:
.... The main thing is that, as I think the blurb writer noted, O'Brian
shows in Hussein (as a very young author) how successfully he can recreate for us a
place and time that he knew only by report . . . obvious Aubrey/Maturin
relevance there. When I read Hussein I was astounded, both because he was so young and because
O'Brian had never been NEAR India, at the amount of plausible detail he
included, It struck me that he must have had a remarkable mind, able to
absorb, retain and recall when he needed it, every word he ever read or
heard. King mentions that the reviews of Hussein were glowing, comparing his
stories to Kipling, and when you read Hussein you can certainly see why. In
some ways Caesar and Hussein are even more impressive than the Aubrey series,
just because they were done by a 14-21 yr. old.
The character of Hussein himself I find interesting because he is a
sympathetic protagonist, and yet, to obtain safety and his heart's
desire, he does some thoroughly discreditable things, without even a
hint that he (or the author) might be concerned about the "morality" of
it. Doesn't this have an echo in Stephen sometimes? The Wrey and Ledward episode
for example? And in Jack in battle. (although he does have black thoughts
afterward).
Susan and others have pointed out the strong parallels with animals and
nature in many episodes. Doesn't this amoral point (Dil) of view reflect an
animal's "morality"? Does a lion worry about his prey? Does a deer stop to
think that the plants he eats belong to another's garden? Can the blade of
grass comprehend its origin and untimate fate? Would Dil have resorted to theft and murder, if the situation required it?
If so, is that because the world she lived in made such things necessary and
excusable? If not, is that because she is a "better person" than Hussein, or
because O'Brian himself had changed in the intervening years?
I think Dil would almost certainly have done anything, not from 'evil' but
from that amoral position I've described. There's another allusion, too, to Dil's 'natural' state. When she's feeding
Stephen I was struck as to how it sounds like a mother bird would feed her
chicks. Then a page or two along they are watching the approaching line of
elephants, and Dil begins to sing. And O'Brian breaks into the description
several times and repeats "Dil sang on" or "Dil sang on and on" until Stephen
sees Diana, whereupon we have "What is amiss with thee?' asked Dil, breaking
off..." Shortly afterward we have Diana charming Dil as one would charm or
tame a little bird. (p. 212ish)
O'Brian was closer to his WW2 intelligence days when he wrote Hussein.
In the world of agents in Occupied Europe, theft and murder were
encouraged. Unfortunately for this theory, it was on the wrong side of WW2 - Hussein
was published in 1938. But theft and murder are not absolutes. They might violate commanments,
but that does not make them immoral as such. Would I steal to feed my
starving children? Would I kill to save their lives? Without hesitation.
Rowen 84
Doesn't this have an echo in Stephen sometimes? The
Wrey and Ledward episode
for example? I've always found it interesting that that although
Stephen slit the throats of the French agent in
Johnson's apartment with great insouciance, he
declined to fight in the naval battles with Jack. The
closest he came was to steer a ship when the Brits
boarded a French vessel (it's too late for me to look
up and reference chapter and verse.) Is this because
POB was himself of two minds on blood letting? Ray McP
I thought Jack made it clear in several instances that the Doctor's battle
station was rightly in the sick-bay, taking care of the wounded. He had no
place in actually fighting in a battle, just as today's watch bills assign
certain duties to all the crew for various evolutions. Blatherin' John B
Peter wrote:
But theft and murder are not absolutes. They might violate commanments,
but that does not make them immoral as such. Would I steal to feed my
starving children? Would I kill to save their lives? Without hesitation.
And Rowen wrote (it was you, wasn't it Rowen?):
Susan and others have pointed out the strong parallels with animals and
nature in many episodes. Doesn't this amoral point (Dil) of view
reflect an animal's "morality"? Does a lion worry about his prey? Does a deer
stop
to think that the plants he eats belong to another's garden? Can the blade
of grass comprehend its origin and untimate fate? I think both of these remarks are appropriate, but neither one is a complete
answer. Yes, it is necessary sometimes for the sake of one's self-preservation,
or to feed/defend others, to violate what otherwise might be concerned a fundamental
moral code. And yes, I think both Dil and Hussein partake, to some degree, of
that "animal" amorality. But the further point of my question was to explore
whether or not any of O'Brian's other characters are like Hussein in being both
*sympathetic* (we identify with and "like" them) and amoral to the extent that
they violate moral laws, not out of necessity, but out of *desire* (in Hussein's
case, to get the woman he loves, and the treasure). Seems to me we enter a more
ambiguous territory here! I think it was Curtis (?) who proposed a parallel with Diana. Yes, the intended
likeness between Diana and Dil is definitely there. But is Diana a Hussein-like
character? On the one hand, is she "sympathetic?" (I foresee a huge range of
opinions on that one) . . . On the other hand, is she oblivious of, or uncaring
about, the effects on others of her actions? Anybody? --------------------
I think that Stephen Maturin draws a very fine distinction, one that he himself
isn't always consistent about, on what is right in these situations. He detests
the act of shooting at a man on another ship just because the flag on top of
the ship is different from his own. He sees the necessity for killing a loathsome
traitor. He would kill Bonaparte, given an opportunity, for the good of all
mankind, but very few others - certainly not strangers who happen to be enemies.
He would kill in a duel, but as we saw several times, he would prefer not to
do so if avoidable without loss of honor.
- Susan
Alerted to the foreshadowings and interplay of animal images by the remarkable
Lissuns, I have some further thoughts: Re the Tigers in HMSS, I was surprised to see the following when I raced through
the Group Read on Post Captain already posted by the redoubtable John Finneran
at
http://jfinnera.www1.50megs.com/pob.html:
From: Susan Wenger
Here's another "animal" anecdote: the first thing Stephen says after Diane first
appears on the scene is:
"There is that fox of theirs," remarked Stephen, in a conversational tone.
"There is that fox we hear so much about. Though indeed it is a vixen, sure."
Deliberate foreshadowing of her character? No doubt in MY mind. Which was replied to by Don Seltzer: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:54:48 -0400 Another such metaphor in PC is when Stephen is making one of his nocturnal
visits to Diana, and is examining the design of a sari. There is a repeating
pattern of an East India Company officer holding a bottle of brandy and being
attacked by a tiger. In the repeating pattern, the expression of the officer
appears to vary between happiness and agony. Diana then offers Stephen a brandy. Here one must believe that the stage is set for Stephen's encounters with Diana
in India in HMSS, first in Bombay when he becomes physically ill when he's rejected
by her and she urges him to don a robe; and when he sees her again in Calcutta,
hoping for her answer to his proposal, and finds her in Cannning's house with
tigers chained in recesses in the porticoes. PC was published in 1972 and HMSS
in 1973, so this must be deliberate. Stephen has certainly been flailed between
the posts of happiness and agony in anticipating his first meeting with Diana
in India and awaiting his second. Of course, it all ends tragically, with Canning's
reaction to finding Diana sobbing on Stephen's shoulder, and the duel. The duel puzzles me: Stephen had hoped to only wing Canning, not kill him,
and has sympathy for Canning as a Jew; he surely must have understood why Canning
would have been jealous when finding Stephen sitting in Bombay in shirt and
breeches and then in Calcutta with Diana clad only in a gown, a jealousy fanned
by his own predicament with his wife due to arrive, and Diana's frequent male
visitors. The narrative makes clear Diana's position as a kept woman and her reputation
in India; she is ruined, of course, both in England and abroad, and if Stephen
makes her the catalyst for a duel, he doesn't protect her from further notoriety.
This compunction never comes up in the book. I have many thoughts on Diana: I admire her spirit and sympathize with her
plight in that world. Without wealth and as a widow, she can't marry into the
world in which she been reared, the world of wealth and privilege, and she always
realizes and openly discusses her situation with Stephen. She might have married
him if he'd only asked her on their carriage ride to Dover in PC. And again,
they might have married if Jack had allowed her to sail with the SURPRISE from
Calcutta, to tend Stephen after his dueling wound. Tortoises: Dil:
The silver bangles must parallel the desire of Diana for wealth, thus independence,
and Stephen's desire for Diana, which must end in tragedy. *** Many of the episodes in HMSS have been among the most memorable for me:
Stephen's castaway days on St. Paul's Rocks, and Diana's run up the hill to
greet Stephen, Stephen's adaptation to life in India, and of course, Dil, as
well as the joyous, comic, bittersweet reunion of Jack and Sophie.
Looking them up in Gary Brown's estimable PASC, I also saw an entry on the HMS
Eurydice. Gary Brown writes: " In a play upon the name on the name of the frigate,
Stephen Maturin compares his abandonment by Diana Villiers to the death of Eurydice,
Orpheus' wife (RM 5)."
I wonder if POB had thought of using that ship at the end of HMSS but saved
it for later, or not. It would have been a fitting ship for Sophie to sail on,
adding an ironic note.*** Linnea Angermuller
Oh, well done, Linnea! (BTW, does anyone besides myself find it charmingly
appropriate that we have a Linnea so interested in zoological matters?) Your thoughts on the animal metaphors etc., but especially on Dil, Diana, and
the duel, are very evocative. (I also like Stephen's carapace!) But specifically: I think this may very well be correct, and that either POB was fooling when
he said he originally had not intended to write another book in the series after
PC, or else I am misremembering! The duel puzzles me: Stephen had hoped to only wing Canning, not kill
him, This is also an apt observation, and to the point. But there are some additional
considerations about the duel:
First, to remain on the metaphorical plane for the moment, Stephen in confronting
Canning on the dueling ground is _fighting with himself_. This is figured in
many ways, by a number of metaphors and images surrounding the dueling incident
(some of them are also discussed in other posts that I think are already in
the Groupread archive). The moral ambiguity is clearest, perhaps, in the image
that Don Seltzer has explicated, of Stephen walking the line between the two
fierce tigers named Right and Wrong (and declining to take that same route when
he leaves Canning's house after seeing Diana!). I continue to think that Stephen's
Latin quotations uttered in a state of delirium after the duel also indicate
his conflict with himself. Beyond this, however, and leaving the figurative language aside, can we say
there is a battle going on between *morality* on the one hand, and *honor* on
the other? We have seen S. tormented by the question of his honor in several
ways, and almost getting into a serious fight with Jack over it. The duel, of
course, is the classic locus of a man's honor, which he must defend to the death
no matter what the "right or wrong" of it (or the legality of it). So, of course
Stephen sees that Canning has good reason to be jealous (though as he acidly
points out, he need make no apologies to any man for kissing a woman, unless
she is that man's wife). But once the challenge has been issued, Stephen's highly
developed sense of honor will not let him back down. Interestingly, Dil comes into play here again. We have seen some discussion
of how POB portrays Dil's state as a kind of "animal" innocence, or amorality
(we also had some enlightening comparisons with Hussein, in his earlier book).
This has been troubling me for a while, but I have not brought it up in here
because everyone else had let the subject drop. At the risk of being a bore,
then, can we really say, after all, that Dil is "innocent"? If it is true that
she is like an animal in that she can, without being guilty, do things that
would be "immoral" in other contexts, then maybe she truly is *amoral*: capable
neither of guilt *nor* innocence. If true, then I retract my earlier suggestion
that one of the qualities she shared with Diana was innocence. By contrast, Stephen is doomed to live in a world of guilt and innocence, morality
and honor. For the sake of his "sacred honor," he is willing to kill (and at
one point in PC, he is described as having a "reptilian" look when he displays
his deadly skill). His political convictions, for which he would kill (and has
killed) if necessary, fall in the category of honor, not that of morality (it
seems to me). So he is forced, by those fundamental values, to do things that,
at another level, he "knows" are wrong. His killing of enemy intelligence agents
(also recently discussed) is another example. Which world does Diana live in? What "fundamental values," if any, propel her? Finally . . . The silver bangles must parallel the desire of Diana for wealth, thus
independence, and Stephen's desire for Diana, which must end in tragedy. Yes indeed. But don't they signify something else as well? By buying those
bangles for Dil, Stephen "bought her off" so that she would not accompany him
to Diana's house; he also tried in a way to bind her to him by buying her happiness.
Was what happened to Dil a warning that he would not be able to buy, or to "bind"
Diana with the offer of a ring, either? -------------------- Both Linnea and Steve have raised interesting thoughts. We've seen that O'Brian likes to visit various issues from different points
of view, changing a variable, exploring another possibility. This post makes
me wonder if Stephen's duel with Canning is another side of his verbal duel
with Dillon in M&C: if the conflict between duty and honor and morality is one
that O'Brian wrestled with as often as Stephen did : }
I believe there is another dimension to the duelling beyond duty and honor
for Stephen. In THD, when he and the master have words over the dog and the
golden hand, Stephen leaves the conflict with a smile and immediately asks one
of the lieutenants to be his second. It's pretty clear that calling out the master is a purely calculated manoeuvre
designed to force him to acquiesce to the recovery of the hand. My sense was
that Stephen knew Jack would be indirectly induced to intercede and that there
was little chance the pair would actually fight. So it wasn't about honor and
certainly not about courage. It was but tactics, an application of his secret
mind to an immediate problem. My guess is that Stephen views fighting as he views so many other things: as
a quirky outcome of the foibles of human nature. For the philosopher, it's another form of empirical investigation, made more
vivid and interesting by occurring in the first person. Even in HMSS, Stephen
is rather detached the night before he fights Canning, reflecting on whether
making diary entries before duelling makes much sense. Or perhaps he simply takes a rather casual view of duelling, because he little
cares if he lives or dies or because he knows he is a capable shot. Regards, (BTW, as a dog owner, I was a bit distressed by the way that he seemed to value
the hand over the welfare of the dog.)
Another consideration along the same lines is that the dog DID chew the hand,
and the marine wasn't properly apologetic. Stephen had Jack in the same quandary
in "Master and Commander:" Jack thought he was NOT 1/2 beat behind, but had
to admit to himself that he'd been sawing, which was in itself wrong. Perhaps
Stephen is being childish here, pushing it because he knows he's going to win
this argument. He's in emotional upheaval, and his social skills fell apart.
- Susan
Steve Ross wrote of Stephen's struggle with honor and morality, and Susan Wenger
in reply wrote of "the conflict between duty and honor and morality." Perhaps this is a key difference in Jack and Stephen. Jack has a firm sense
of where his duty lies, and that is how he sets his moral compass. It is rare
that honor and morality conflict with his sense of duty. Jack always knows where
his duty lies, and he is confident that such a path will also be honorable and
moral, a very Nelsonian concept. Stephen's self-doubts and moral conflicts are due in part to a lack of such
a well-defined duty. His loyalties are mixed between the causes of Catalonia,
Ireland, the British crown, and the Royal Navy, and in each case his loyalty
is qualified. The only cause in which he can commit himself without reservation
is a negative one, the defeat of Napoleon and his tyranny. Don Seltzer
Yes, that's a nice distinction. I'm certain that POB felt as Stephen did on
this subject, much as he admired and recognized the value and need for people
like Jack to defend England.
I am very much in agreement with this. Stephen is forced to see things in their
full ambiguity, in shades of gray, no matter how painful this may be; for Jack,
on the other hand, "morality" cannot be in conflict with "duty" or "honor."
That is just the sort of person he is; for him, things are either black or white,
right or wrong . . . naked or clothed.
Thank you, Steve and Susan! Made my day. Toggling back and forth between Digests
and the Gunroom, I missed a lot of these messages and have now caught up. Thanks for the "charmingly appropriate that we have a Linnea so interested
in zoological matters?" Well, I do love gardening and plants and trees, adored
the tropics, and the animals we saw there all the time, not to mention the birds,
and adore Gerald Durrell. But I can't aspire to be such a natural philosopher
as Stephen is. And I agree that his sense of honor won't allow him to ignore Canning's blow.
As you wrote, Don Seltzer pointed out the conflict of Right and Wrong. I can't
remember if Stephen ever again is so conflicted because perhaps never again
is he so hopeful for a liaison with Diana; he's been less than candid with Jack,
and becomes something like an automaton before the duel, feeling he's caused
Dil's death as a deus ex machina, and his entire life has been a fight to keep
his honor as a bastard. Poor Stephen, he understands himself and others all
too well, but events can still propel him into acting against his better instincts. I can't write anything of value to add to what you've all written. All those
good posts do cause me to mull over motives and character, though, in a way
I never did on first and second readings. Steve asks: "Which world does Diana live in? What "fundamental values,"
if any, propel her?" Very good question. What world *can* she live in? We know her childhood was
privileged and exotic, and impoverished widowhood left her at the mercy of the
hateful Mrs. Williams, who then farmed her out to take care of the "teapot"
cousin (Jerry Shurman, any Alice in Wonderland here?). Most upper and middle
class households until perhaps World War II had maiden aunts or unfortunates
who were given their keep in exchange for their help with the house and children.
Not Diana! She clearly sees her only way out is to use her beauty, but she sees
her narrow choices all too clearly and chafes at her role. Not to make a big deal out of gender, but we do pity Jack when he has no ship,
and Stephen when he can't set foot on all those shores that tempt him with their
fauna, as Jack keeps cracking on. We must pity Diana when she can't achieve
what we have to assume is her goal of independence and wealth. Why she isn't
content to attract a parson or simple country gentleman must lie in her youthful
life, and the fact that she isn't maternal. She is young enough when we meet her that she still has aspirations and hopes.
Sophie has only the traditional ones of a romantic marriage and a family, and
isn't as memorably etched. She may have her own struggles with her gender role,
but accepts it. Can we ascribe a better character to Sophie in her unthinking
acceptance? I'm amazed at POB's insights into them and his awareness of so much in human
relationships. It's very hard not to hear him speaking or thinking when we read
about Stephen. I see so much of these four characters as formed by their backgrounds; they
are almost helpless to be other than who they are, striving for affection and
identity, love, and a place in the world. That's what we do when we're 30. ~~ Linnea
Nice analysis. Y'know, I don't think Diana would have refused a nice parson
or simple country gentleman. They didn't make her any offers. She was a beautiful
woman, and sometimes her beauty worked against her. She got a great many lecherous
offers, sly winks, unwanted attentions from men, married and unmarried, which
worked her up into a suspicion of ALL men's motives. Most nice parsons and simple
country gentlemen would have been afraid to pursue Diana, afraid that the beautiful
woman would laugh at them, put them down, make them feel ridiculous for having
offered. Despite all appearances, I believe that Diana WOULD have married Stephen
if he'd made her an outright, straightforward proposal early on. He didn't.
He hinted, he whined, he talked in circles, he did not say "Diana, I love you,
will you marry me?" Stephen, also, was afraid of rejection, was afraid of the
forthright proposal. When he proposed to Diana in India she was astonished -
she had no idea he would be serious about marrying her. She thought he was offering
out of pity, out of a sense of duty, out of friendship. She truly didn't know
before then that he loved her, and she wasn't sure of it even then. At that
point, she wasn't even looking for the best match she could make - she was being
noble, trying to keep Stephen from marrying her for the wrong reasons and being
unhappy afterward. Comedy of Errors ain't innit - a little straight and honest communication would
have changed the whole course of the series : } - Susan
Don wrote:
"Stephen's self-doubts and moral conflicts are due in part to a lack of such
a well-defined duty. His loyalties are mixed between the causes of Catalonia,
Ireland, the British crown, and the Royal Navy, and in each case his loyalty
is qualified. The only cause in which he can commit himself without reservation
is a negative one, the defeat of Napoleon and his tyranny." I agree with the sentiment, I think, but disagree with this characterization.
Stephen's code is less tangible, but the reason his support waffles for each
of the mentioned causes is that each of them individually represents an imperfect
representation of his code.. He is motivated by individual and national rights,
and Bonaparte is the antithesis to this code, which is why Stephen is militant
and unwavering there. But to say he lacks a "well-defined duty" seems wrong.
Rather he has principles which he applies consistently throughout the story,
and from which I think we could extrapolate confidently even to current conflicts.
For example, let me pose the following question: where would Stephen stand on
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Would he support an Israeli state, and if
so, would he support a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank? If we can
answer this with confidence, then this would demonstrate in fact that his principles
and duty is well defined. I do not want to answer these questions myself as
I do not want to bias answers, but will weigh in tomorrow. Curtis
Curtis wrote: Jack was always going to be Jack Stephen evolved. A Catalan who studied at Trinity A small pale almost ugly Irish male--no such thing ! Forsooth (I rest my case) Alec O F
Comedy of Errors ain't innit - a little straight and
honest communication would have changed the whole course
of the series : } Yeah, and if Scarlett O'Hara had been a little more straightforward and honest
GWTW would have been a long boring book. The twin themes of Jack's ambition and Stephen's search for stability dominate
the canon. Jack, from the moment we meet him, is dominated by promotion and
the supremacy of the Royal Navy. Stephen wants something, but I'm not sure what.
An estate in Ireland, a quick-witted woman by his side, a brood of children
and peace. I think Stephen wants that or something very like, but it would be
no story if he ever gained it. The Yellow Admiral is the closest we ever get to some sort of peace and bliss.
The war is over, everyone is settled, Bonden's prize fight is the biggest news
of The Shire. And then, well it's spoiler territory. Cheers, Peter
Peter wrote:
The twin themes of Jack's ambition and Stephen's search for stability
dominate the canon. Jack, from the moment we meet him, is dominated by<
promotion and the supremacy of the Royal Navy. Stephen wants something,
but I'm not sure what. An estate in Ireland, a quick-witted woman by his
side, a brood of children and peace. I think Stephen wants that or
something very like, but it would be no story if he ever gained it.
Not to be too picky (well, what the heck, why stop now?): Among those things
Peter lists it seems to me the one thing Stephen most definitely did not want
was a brood of children. Was he not a most reluctant expectant father, and had
never pictured himself as a parent? Fatherhood grew on him, of course -- as
it seems to on a great number of men. But I think it's safe to say having a
passel of children, or even one child, was not among his blissful fantasies.
Marian
Jack was always going to be Jack Just how good-looking *are* you, Mr. O' Flaherty? (I couldn't help myself;
you left a broadside target.)<g> Marian
Good point someone made (sorry - I've not kept track of who it was) about Jack's
view being black and white in relation to Stephen and gray areas. It's also
interesting to observe how uncomfortable Jack becomes when he has to deal with
any sort of moral question (such as his previously-discussed judgment of Diana
late in HMSS, his refusal to allow Stephen to bring Padeen aboard, etc.) that
does not fall into black or white. I'm Camembert. (cheese) I nominate Linnea and Susan for co-posts of the day for their lovely analyses
of Diana (though MacKenna's was not far behind neither.) No sane person EATS at a county fair. I'd sooner have some of the foods served
on some of Jack and Stephen's leaner voyages...-RD, finicky eater.
Linnea wrote:
Thanks for the "charmingly appropriate that we have a Linnea so interested
in zoological matters?" Well, I do love gardening and plants and trees, adored
the tropics, and the animals we saw there all the time, not to mention the birds,
and adore Gerald Durrell. But I can't aspire to be such a natural philosopher
as Stephen is. Well, I was actually trying to puzzle out whether there was any comparison
between Linnea and LinnaeUS. Bad joke . . . sorry. Steve
Waddisay? Waddisay? Steve, I was charmed that you thought it was charming!
And I smoked the Linnaeus, of course. I've always been happy that I had this
natural philospher bent (since I discovered just who Linnaeus was). My ancestors
were Swedish (NO !), and I have a sister Britta and a daughter Britta. Olsons
and Pynttners and Bittners ain't innit.
Can't think of any other List I'm on where any of the group would know what
you meant re Linneaus!
I thought your note was very apt.
~~ Linnea (charming little pink flower in the Swedish highlands
I thought, when you first signed on, that you were posting under a pseudonym,
a wholly appropriate one, given the nature of Stephen's bent.
But I am delighted to find Linnea is your true name, and a delightful name
for a delightful lady it is to be sure.
At 4:15 PM -0500 12/18/2001, Curtis Ruder wrote:
... But to say [Stephen] lacks a "well-defined duty" seems wrong. Rather
he has principles which he applies consistently throughout the story, and from
which I think we could extrapolate confidently even to current conflicts. I think that there is a definite distinction between duty and principles. Duty
is obligation and obedience to some group or higher authority, and implies some
level of "belonging" to, and serving a particular group. Jack is comfortable
in his role as an officer in the Royal Navy, and adopts its principles and objectives
as his own, almost as a matter of faith. It is rare that his duty to the RN
and the crown lead to conflicts with his moral principles or his honor (leaving
the exceptions to another discussion). Of course Stephen has principles and a sense of honor. But as the perennial
outsider, he does not share Jack's obligation or obedience to a particular group
and its particular code. He is left to question every moral decision, resulting
in his self-doubts. I will immediately amend the previous statement. Stephen does have a well-defined
sense of duty when in the role of physician. He unquestioningly accepts the
Hippocratic oath, and will treat friend and enemy alike, without the slightest
moral uncertainties. Perhaps Stephen is happiest, or most at peace with himself
when acting as a doctor. Curtis continued:
me pose the following question: where would Stephen stand on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Would he support an Israeli state, and if so,
would he support a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank? If we can
answer this with confidence, then this would demonstrate in fact that his
principles and duty is well defined. I would argue that Duty has nothing to do with whatever position Stephen might
hypothetically take. Being neither Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Moslem, or
any other member of either side, he has no obligation and thus no well-defined
duty. As to Principles, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to where they would lead
Stephen. Don Seltzer
In the final chapter of HMSS, Jack and Stephen go ashore on a small,
uninhabited island in the Indian Ocean. While Stephen makes the "most
important discovery of his life", Jack is attempting to fix the exact
longitude of the island, apparently by observation of Venus in the middle
of the day.
Is this probable? What kind of observation was Jack making? A transit of
Venus across the sun was sometimes used, but this is inconsistent with
Venus being near a pale moon. The only other possibility I can think of is
an occulation of Venus by the moon. Would Jack have available the kind of
telescope that would permit him to observe such an event in mid-day?
Or maybe POB was just stretching things a bit to make an entirely different
type of observation,
"'The most satisfactory observation I have ever made', said Jack. He
clapped the eyepiece to and cast an affectionate look at Venus, sailing
away up there, distinct in the perfect blue once one knew where to look."
Also in the astronomical vein, POB uses some nice symmetry at the beginning
and end of the voyage. In chapter V, "the sun beat down from its noon-day
height upon Bombay...", moves westward to strike the Surprise in the
Atlantic in a blaze of light, and awaken Stephen from an erotic dream. And
in the final chapter, on a mountain side on Madeira, "the circling sun,
having lit up Calcutta and then Bombay, came up on the other side of the
world and blazed full on his upturned face..." arousing him from a less
happy sleep.
Don Seltzer
Observing Venus during the day is indeed possible. It is a very bright
planet, due to the sunlight reflecting off its clouds. So long as it is
not very close to the sun, you may see it during the day. The easiest
time is when it is close to the moon, so you may check its position
early in the morning when both Venus and the moon are visible and the
sun is not, and then later when the sun is risen and all other stars and
planets are drowned out in the glare, just use the moon as a reference
to pick it up again.
It is a tiny faint spark in the daylight sky, quite hard to spot on its
own, but eminently visible. I recommend using the edge of a wall or roof
to block out the sun while you search the ecliptic.
Thanks, Peter. I'm suddenly enthused about the thought of seeking out
Venus in the middle of the day.
Don Seltzer
I mentioned some software called "Starry Night" a week or so ago...you can
download it free, and it works for 15 days I think. It'll show you where
everything in the heavens is, based on your location, time, etc. Pretty
simple to use, and addicting. You might give it a shot.
bs
I have seen Venus in the full light of day without telescope or
binoculars ... once I knew where to look. But I'm not sure what your are
asking since I know nothing about sighting and sextants and such. After
I found Venus, it was impossible not to see her!
Jill, mostly lurking
Hi, All!
I learned very little in my astrophotography class but
one thing I did learn that amazed me is that you can,
truly, see Venus with the naked eye during the daytime.
Conditions permitting, of course. The teacher backed this
up by dragging us outside and proving it. You just have to
know where to look and believe me, we spent plenty of time
murmuring our discontent and disbelief until one by one we
all finally found Venus. And (ahem) I have the pictures to
prove it. It could be that perhaps we were looking for
Venus closer to the end of the day, about 2 or so hours
before sunset that helped, we had mountains as a point to
refer off of, but honest, we saw it.
Amazing. I haven't got a clue as how celestial
navigation actually works so I can't venture an sort of
opinion on how Jack was doing what Jack was doing. If he
had the appropriate almanac or notes, it is very likely he
would be able to figure out where he was. As I said, you
just have to know where to look.
Karen von Bargen Thanks, Bob, but what we need to see Venus when the Sun is up is "Starry Day".
www.starryday.com doesn't help that much
and, frankly I'm surprised that the name was registered.
On 21 Dec 2001 at 11:59, Don Seltzer wrote:
What kind of observation was Jack making? A transit of Venus across the
sun was sometimes used, but this is inconsistent with Venus being near a pale
moon. The only other possibility I can think of is an occulation of Venus by
the moon.
I wonder if we could trace this? It might even be possible to date the observation!
I searched for occultations of Venus in 1805/1806 and though I didn't find
anything specific there was a page of the publications of Charles Messier at
http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/history/m-
pub.html
In particular I noted:
Observations et dessin de la grande et belle nébuleuse de la ceinture d'Androméde,
la première qui fut découverte, et de deux petites nébuleuses, l'une au-dessus
de la grande et le seconde au- dessous, vues dans une lunette qui renverse,
comme le dessin. Grande comète qui a paru à la naissance de Napoléon le Grand, découverte
le 8 aôut 1769 et observée pendant quatre mois.
For the benefit of lissuns with the same grasp of French as me (or
Jack Aubrey) the following translations might be of use:
Observations and drawing of the great and beautiful nebula in the girdle
of Andromeda, the first which was discovered, and the two small nebulae, the
one above the great and the second below it, viewed with a reversing telescope,
with the drawing.
You don't get any Messier than Messier 31!
Great comet which has appeared at the birth of Napoleon the Great, discovered
on August 8, 1769 and observed during four months.
How to suck up to authority...
Martin @ home:
In a message Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 Don Seltzer wrote:
Steve Ross wrote of Stephen's struggle with honor and morality, and Susan
Wenger in reply wrote of "the conflict between duty and honor and
morality."
Perhaps this is a key difference in Jack and Stephen. Jack has a firm
sense of where his duty lies, and that is how he sets his moral compass.
One can also view the contrast between both characters as representating the
Age of Enlightenment (Jack) and the Age of Romanticism (Stephen). Jack is
backward looking, jolly, Hadynesque, conventional in most matters save the
execution of military strategy. Stephen is a tortured individual, with
internal conflicts that remind one of the early Beethoven, and like many
Romantics, much taken with Nature and the attractions of laudanum.
Paul, currenlty much conflicted with the imminent arrival of the euro. No
longer able to spend a penny, must I become an Euronator ?
We were discussing:
the conflict between duty and honor and morality."
I cannot now call to mind the book in which Jack and Stephen have this very
discussion. Is it in M&C, perhaps?
Jack says words to the effect that you can only serve one King, you're a
scrub to love more than one woman. Stephen counters that conflicting
loyalties to God, Country, Morality etc will always arise.
On 21 Dec 2001 at 21:56, Martin wrote:
I wonder if we could trace this? It might even be possible to date
the observation!
I posted a query on the "Does anybody know?" board at the UK Motley
Fool. Somebody replied that there did not seem to be any actual
occultations of Venus in 1805/6 but there was an event on 28th
January 1805. I quote:
"Found another possibility if it doesn't have to be a technical
occultation. On 28th January 1805 Venus and the Moon are within 2.4
degrees of each other before dawn at approx 5:40am and visible from
the indian ocean (I picked a spot at 69E 1N but it would be visible
for a wide area).
This would be a very splendid sight even if not an occultation."
See: http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=6904596
I have a feeling this might be a bit early for the chronology. I
tried to find Don's timeline from Gibbon's reference page but it
didn't seem to be accessible - has it moved?
Martin @ home:
I have a similar program called Red Shift. It seems that Venus can be
found near the sun these days, following the same path but leading by an
hour - about a handspan to the right, I believe ( to the left for our
friends Down Under). I'll try Peter's technique tomorrow.
Peter Mackay wrote:
It is a tiny faint spark in the daylight sky, quite hard to spot on its
own, but eminently visible. I recommend using the edge of a wall or roof
to block out the sun while you search the ecliptic.
I now think that Jack was carrying out the standard Lunar Distance method,
measuring the separation of Venus and the moon, and comparing the result to
published tables. His determination of an error of 27 miles means that his
chronometers had been out by about 108 seconds.
Don Seltzer
Oh dear, I am entering a senior life, not just senior moments. I used to be
able to turn right to a page and paragraph I needed.
The Cambridge International Dictionary of English has it:
camp (STYLE)
camp
camp
Most of the other searches yielded similar results, but I don't subscribe
to the OED. Who is our OED expert? When did this word enter the language as
an adjective?
It is the perfect word for General Aubrey, of course.
~~ Linnea
Linnea refers to Gen 'l Aubrey as being somewhere referred to as a "camp
and
country" gentleman. The usage of the time wd refer to a military life as a
life of "camp."
The present use of "camp," wch may have been popularized in an essay by
Susan Sontag some time in the 1960's, perhaps, casts a strange light on
certain military folk of my acquaintance. And what's that funny British
novel
where a recruit tells his seargant that it's not a good day for him: "I'm
feeling a bit fragile this morning," he says. Camp-camp, as it were.
Charlezzzz
My 1971 microprint edition of the OED does not give camp as an adjective at
all, and it does not give any meaning associated with homosexuality,
cross-dressing, femininity, etc.
I take it to mean that General Aubrey spends his time at Army encampments
or down in the country hunting.
EB
Somewhere in The Mauritius Command or HMS Surprise, Jack Aubrey's father
is being described as a "camp and country gentleman," or something like
that.
HMSS, chapter 7: "General Aubrey was not a disreputable man; he was kind
and well-bred in his camp and country way ..."
Bob Kegel
I've always taken this as a reference to a military camp, where perhaps
the living was a bit rough and roisterous, which, combined with
country, suggests the general was not particularly polished in his
manners. There's a passage in (I think) HMSS in which the general and
his new wife visit Sophy, and the general embarasses her with
heavy-handed complements. One thinks of Squire Western in "Tom
Jones."
Gerry Strey
ekburton@SWBELL.NET writes:
My 1971 microprint edition of the OED does not give camp as an adjective
at all, and it does not give any meaning associated with homosexuality,
cross-dressing, femininity, etc.
Do you mean the OED is fallible? Even in the 70's, 'camp' was an adjective
for outrageous !
Blatherin' John B
Oh Blatherin', how could you say such a thing?
Entertain such a thought? OED fallible? Never! It is
the finest of religious tomes, and useful not only as
a reference work, but as free weights, building
material, emergency furniture, and bug-destroyer.
Kyle-who lusts after the OED in all t's forms...
Do you mean the OED is fallible? Even in the 70's, 'camp' was an adjective
for outrageous !
Looking at the introduction, the microprint edition is a reprint of the
1928 edition.
Recent terms, such as "automobile" and "wireless," appear in the supplement.
EB
Being on my second reading of the Canon, though a bit behind the GroupRD, it
came to me that Jack¹s refusal to take Diana aboard the Surprise on its way
back to England was a very determinant fact in Stephen and Diana¹s break.
What if she would have stayed with Stephen, nursing him on board?. She
wouldn¹t have had the opportunity to run away with Johnson, and by the time
she talks to Jack, she is very moved and willing to stay by Stephen.
Obviously, Jack didn¹t want her on board, considering she was such a
striking woman, but mainly, I think he refused her out of jealousy or as she
said, cowardice to face his own feelings for her. Also, could it be that
Jack unconsciously resented Stephen¹s ³wholly dishonourable thing² , as was
discussed in HMSS¹s Group RD?. Some kind of retribution?.
Of course, it might be interpreted as Jack¹s looking for his friend¹s
behalf, as Diana would give him nothing but unhappiness, but he resents
their relation so.
He even lies to Stephen when he asks him if Diana had attempted to get a
lift on the Surprise. What would have been Stephen¹s reaction if he had
learned the truth?. It is such a turning point in Stephen¹s life and their
friendship!.
This character treatment by POB is one of the things I love best of the
Canon. As it is in real life, there is hardly a single motif in one¹s
actions ,nor always just a rational one. Most of the time we are driven by
unconscious forces we hardly know to exist, more over, confess.
My apologies for my syntaxes or any confusion of ideas that such a learned
group of lissuns might find. I am still shy to share my ideas or feelings
about my reading or to accomplish any witty observation in a language which
is not my own, but also, it is nice to know there are so many people who
understand my passion for the Canon, or, should I say ³addiction²?.
--
I love O'Brian's use of multiple causality!
Thanks for this message - I enjoyed it. (I got some
strange characters in place of apostrophes).
- Susan
Sorry about the strange characters. It's because I use a Spanish keyboard
and a MacIntosh!. I'l try to remember to change it when I write to the
Gunsoom.
M.
Susan Wenger wrote:
(I got some strange characters in place of apostrophes)
Around here, you ALWAYS get some strange characters ...
Bruce Trinque Sorry about the strange characters. It's because I use a Spanish keyboard
and a MacIntosh!. I'l try to remember to > change it when I write to the Gunsoom.
M.
No, never in life! The canon is full, chock full of strange characters,
and your observations are most useful indeed. Just how much thought did
PO'B put into that decision, and how different would the succeeding
books have been if Diana had been allowed aboard?
POSSIBLE SPOILER(S)
That has always been one of the interesting "what if's" in the Canon.
Stephen doesn't have his fortune, yet, right? Without that, in that
stage of Diana's life, I think the feelings were doomed to be temporal.
Later, of course, Diane deals nicely, pragmatically with poverty in
their married life, but at that time I don't think she's ready for a
poor Stephen.
Also, my recollection of this passage was that Jack refused to take
her because he sincerely believed her to be wrong for Stephen. Of
course, he may have convinced himself that that was the reason; but
I'm curious what leads you to believe it was jealousy? I don't
recall anything that would lead me to that conclusion.
Nathan
It seems to me, as I read between the sheets, that in the early days Jack
and Diana had been two-backed-beasting it more than once. More than twice,
too. And Maturin is aware of it, but is too well brought up to speak of the
matter -- that perfume! The most unlucky gift he cd have given her.
Charlezzzzz
I think you have done a wonderful job of expressing your observations,
Margarita. And you are absolutely right; Jack's one action of denying
passage to Diana had far-reaching consequences. While it might seem to some
that Diana wanted a rich man who could "keep her," it has previously been
discussed at length that one reason she didn't accept Stephen's love, at
first, was that he was probably the only man in her life who had merely
loved her for who she was, without expecting anything back. If she had been
allowed to travel along and nurse him, who knows? But Jack's double
standard, and probably also his jealousy of her relations with Stephen,
prevailed; thus leading to more suspense and intrigue.
Thank you for sharing this with us. I hope you'll continue sharing your
observations; you have better English than some of the so-called "native"
speakers! -RD
If they suspect me of intelligence, I am sure it will soon blow over (TFOW,
p.184)
Ah yes, the perfume, I remember the unlucky perfume. There was certainly
jealousy between the two in PC, whilst they were jockeying for position.
Howsomever, I always felt that there was a definite cessation of Jack's
regard for Diana when he a)saw her consorting with Canning and b)received
affirmation that he'd won Sophie's heart. Jack seems to me to be the type
to turn his love/lust into dislike and to not continue to harbor jealousy
about Diana.
On the other hand, I'm not the most alert of readers and hence I repeat:
is there something I missed in HMSS that indicates jealousy as a reason
for his refusal to take Diana? Or is it a difference in others' analysis
of Jack's character?
Nathan
on 8/1/02 7:38 AM, Nathan Varnum discusses Jack's refusal to give passage to
Diana, when she asks to be brought home from India, and can nurse the
heart-struck Maturin.
Or is it a difference in others' analysis of Jack's character?
As I see Jack, the young Jack, the Jack who has not yet developed his
feelings for Sophie, he is the kind of sailor -- I knew a great many -- who
wd leap into whatever bed beckoned him: indeed, I hardly knew any other
kind, and in Jack's day, when ships held the sea for years at a time,
nautical gentlemen were brought up in an atmosphere of even greater pressure
pushing them toward whatever delights they cd find ashore.
Jack is a fine, upstanding example of the Roman saying: "Penis erectus non
conscientiam habet."
And Diana? A gentlemanly person, someone calls her. Consider: brought up in
a military household, widow of a military man, no missish milky creature,
but a tiger, a mantis, a seasnake -- what else does POB compare her to? Does
not the hypersubtle Maturin, in the garden, acknowledge that she is a
hunter, and quotes "Your chase has a beast in view."
It's a line from Dryden:
All, all of a piece throughout
Consider Jack's lowest point in all the books: when he goes all uninvited to
Diana's house at night, and hears laughter... and climbs a dangling line to
the place where he can look into her room. Today we'd call that "stalking."
It is hardly her laughter that sends him off, horribly frustrated, into the
night. And it hardly her laughter that calls him back to "visit" her time
after time when he shd be taking his ship to sea.
Now think of the sexual drive behind those visits, visits that put his
career in jeopardy -- his career, the most important thing in his life --
and imagine the pressures on Jack when Maturin, in friendship, tries to warn
him of what he already fully knows. Great pressures, and he turns on Maturin
with his "bastard" and "liar" speech as a result.
[I've writing this to establish that both Jack and Stephen, early on, were
Diana's "lovers." Enjoyed her favors, as a certain kind of novelist might
say.]
And, to get back to the question as to why Jack refuses her passage back to
England, is not this history enough? She nearly destroyed his career, nearly
destroyed his friendship, put him -- consequently -- in a great danger of
losing what he valued most.
And, if he took her aboard, might she not have done it again... even to the
point of destroying his marriage? Are we not told, in a later book, that
Diana is far, far better at sex games than the frigid Sophie is?
Our two heroes are, after all, in the hands of a god who is fully able to
kill his characters. And Maturin, who has pushed his sharp instruments
through his own peritoneum, is more likely to die than not. Suppose we look
into the dimmer recesses of Jack's mind, where some dream-critter is saying,
"Stephen may die. I'll be alone for a vast great amount of time with Diana.
Whee! Stephen may, luckily, die. Diana! And I have the only private bed on
the ship. If Stephen dies. If only... Diana, all to myself for months and
months."
No wonder he turns her down in her request for passage to England. And later
lies about it to Stephen. As Conrad writes: "There is the odor of mortality
about a lie." And about Diana.
Charlezzzzz
Earlier in this thread I said "my recollection of this passage was that
Jack refused to take her because he sincerely believed her to be wrong
for Stephen. Of course, he may have convinced himself that that was the
reason..."
I believe, Charlezzzz, you may have hit upon it. He was protecting Stephen
*and* himself, perhaps even himself moreso. I still don't see that
jealousy of Stephen/Diana plays a part, but can see that he was afraid of
being with Diana day after day.
Nathan
I think you're absolutely right, Nathan. I'm convinced that Jack had no
lingering feelings for Diana -- though I think the cessation of those
feelings were first of all because of her subsequent actions, not because
of Sophie's entrance into the equation.
Jack's refusal to take Diana aboard at that point was due to his feeling
that she was just a very bad bet for Stephen (as she already had been, and,
for that matter, as she had been for him -- Jack -- too). I think he
believed he was doing the best thing for Stephen because Stephen was just
too far gone where Diana was concerned (to Jack's mind) to do the best
thing for himself.
I understand the impulse, actually; I probably would have done the same
thing.
Marian
I have to say that my reading(s) of this was that A) Jack now had an active dislike for Diana & B) His concern was for his friend Stephen, who he thought Diana was bad for. (& can one say he was wrong, at that stage)?
Ted
I don't necessarily agree that Stephen has had sex
with Diana at the time of Post Captain; Jack, yes, at
least long enough for Diana to be certain that he was
at that time fairly incompetent at pleasing women. I
think Stephen visited her frequently, courting her by
being there, but not necessarily being awarded her
favors. I think that when Jack climbed the tree and
watched her, she was entertaining Canning, not
Stephen.
Sue Reynolds, whose mailbox so overflew that I ended
up deleting most of June and July.
Charlezzz wrote....
Our two heroes are, after all, in the hands of a god who is fully able to
kill his characters. And Maturin, who has pushed his sharp instruments
through his own peritoneum, is more likely to die than not. Suppose we look
into the dimmer recesses of Jack's mind, where some dream-critter is saying,
"Stephen may die. I'll be alone for a vast great amount of time with Diana.
Whee! Stephen may, luckily, die. Diana! And I have the only private bed on
the ship. If Stephen dies. If only... Diana, all to myself for months and
months."
I'm not so sure. I like to credit Jack with nobler motives.
Diana had nearly destroyed Jack's career, pushed his friendship with Stephen
to breaking point, almost destroyed Jack's chances with Sophie, caused Jack
to act less than honourably in many ways.
At this point in the story, Stephen is perhaps mortally wounded, again
because of Diana.
As violently as he has lusted for her, he now hates and fears her.
Jack tried desperately to prevent their meeting in Bombay. He failed, and
now Stephen lays dying.
I think that Jack's motive was simply to get Stephen away from Diana before
she destroyed him utterly.
Jack now knows that Stephen, his strong, self sufficient, self contained
friend is helplessly in love with her, Stephen has both literally and
figuratively opened his heart to Jack and all Jack can do is to get him away
from her.
Peace
John
It is certainly open to interpretation, whether Diana was having sex
with Stephen at that time; she was very cruel one night, telling him
that just because he has "kissed" her, he mustn't imagine he has any
claim on her.
I can certainly believe that Diana might use "kiss" as a euphemism for
The Act, not giving it all that much importance.
Isabelle Hayes
Selected quotes from The Secular Masque by Dryden (written at the turn of
the century, 1699-1700)
Characters: Janus, Chronos, Momus (god of mirth), Diana, Mars, Venus
CHRONOS
I'm sure this subject has been thoroughly dissected already, but the poem
is such a frequently recurring motif, with lines from the chorus appearing
in some if not all of the books, that I've been wondering what it all
means.
"All, all of a piece" is often quoted by Stephen, as a kind of lament. He
uses it once to deplore the condition of the sick bay in one of Jack's
ships, but I can't remember which one.
"Thy chase had a beast in view" is an obvious reference to POB's Diana, who
first appears in hot pursuit of a fox. It could also apply to any number
of chases after prizes, or the Waakzamheidt after the Leopard. The context
of the poem seems to point out the futility of all the endeavors of Diana,
Mars and Venus. But in a fox hunt, what's wrong with having a beast in view?
Are Mars and Venus personified in the canon?
Do any of the lines other than the chorus appear in any of the books?
I think I'm just too literal-minded to appreciate poetry. But there's food
for thought here. What did this poem mean to POB? Was it just like a little
song that goes around in your head all the time and you hum a bit of it
occasionally? Or was it a THEME?
Just wondering.
Katherine
Mars and Venus are multiply personified within the canon. POB well knew his
Dryden, depend upon it. HR Greenberg MD.
Vulcan, too. Steven has that role from time to time, wounded heart. hrg md
endit
And, though not virginal, POB's huntress Diana can treat a guy the way the
virgin huntress Diana, goddess of the Moon, treated the unhappy Actaeon.
pragmatical and absolute, [FoW8]
Mary S
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
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: A couple of technicalities
'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.
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:20 PM
Subject: HMSS: Stephen's clothing and moral crisis
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: A couple of technicalities
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: A couple of technicalities
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: A couple of technicalities
Cheers, Peter
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: Stephen's clothing and his moral crisis (includes spoilers)...LONG
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Ray McPherson
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: A couple of technicalities
From: Charlezzzz@AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:34 PM
Subject: Stephen in the Garden of Eden perhaps? BATM spoiler.
.
.
.
This insight, for the first time, puts before me the reason why Stephen and
Christine go naked through the swamp in order to see that great bird.
From: Mary S
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: GrpRead:HMSS:Heautontimoroumenos
(a new one I just found)
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS: Stephen's clothing and his moral crisis (includesspoilers)...LONG
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject: HMSS: Stephen's crisis, Take Two (slightly spoilerish; was Heautontimoroumenos)
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Samuel Bostock
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: 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.
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS A couple of technicalities
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:42 PM
Subject: Spacing them out WAS: HMSS A couple of technicalities
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: Stephen's clothing and his moral crisis (includesspoilers)...LONG
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: HMSS: Stephen's clothing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
proposing marriage to Diana:
-RD
From: Steven K Ross
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS: Stephen's clothing
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: GrpRead:HMSS:Heautontimoroumenos
From: Steven K Ross
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 6:08 AM
Subject: The Dread Clothing Theory Strikes Again! WAS Re: [POB] Back to Post Captain --- & Characters.
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: GRPREAD:HMSS:parachute
From: Steven K Ross
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: GRPREAD:HMSS:parachute
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: parachute
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead: HMS Surprise
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Vanessa Brown
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 10:59 PM
Subject: Ben Affleck, Matt Damon signed to new OBrian film: NY Times
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jack is planning the rescue of Stephen from his torturers, O'Brian writes:
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:18:31 -0800
Subject: GroupRead:HMSS:2 questions and an answer
Two questions, please, near the end of HMSS, and an answer in return:
From: Samuel Bostock
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
Subject: GroupRead:HMSS:2 questions and an answer
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:15:42 -0500
Subject: Re: GroupRead:HMSS:2 questions and an answer
From: Steve Ross
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:41:24 -0600
Subject: The Dropping of the Duel, the Archives, and the Aubrey/Maturin Trilogy
(was Re: [POB] PC: some questions/comments)
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Rosemary Davis
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:02:56 -0500
Subject: HMSS: tigers and Diana, also twins
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:54:02 -0800
Subject: GroupRead:HMSS:Horseman
From: Mary Arndt
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:43:46 -0500
Subject: Re: HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Rosemary Davis
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:18:58 -0500
Subject: [POB] HMSS: Jack's treatment of Diana
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 17:01:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
At this point, I don't think Jack is really afraid to have Diana on his
ship because of potential temptation and possible friction between him and Stephen.
(Recall that he has just acquired the means to set his financial affairs in
order and ask Sophie to marry him). I think he is just indulging in the conventional
distaste for the "fallen woman". He has decided that Stephen would be better
off without her and he has the autocratic means to keep them separated for a
while. Diana recognizes this and that is why she calls him a scrub, and because
he recognizes it too, he is tormented by her remark
72°22'51"W
From: Marian Van Til
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 19:39:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Bob Kegel
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 18:00:10 -0800
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
He has decided that Stephen would be better off without her and he has the
autocratic means to keep them separated for a while.
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Ruth A Abrams
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 23:22:27 -0500
Subject: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 06:09:42 -0800
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:51:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
41°37'53"N
72°22'51"W
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:38:26 -0800
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Peter Mackay
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 06:33:24 +1100
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Charlezzzz@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:42:47 -0500
Subject: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Vanessa Brown
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:47:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
From: Doug Essinger-Hileman
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:36:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana
Drowsy Frowsy List Greeter, Rated Able
39°51'06"N
79°54'01"W
From: Rosemary Davis
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:24:07 -0500
Subject: [POB] HMSS: Stephen's note to Diana
From: Bob Kegel
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 17:10:15 -0800
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: Stephen's note to Diana
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:23:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] HMSS: tigers and Diana On board
From: Steve Ross
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:36:50 -0600
Subject: [POB] HMSS: Stephen on the mountaintop, was Re: Jack's treatment of Diana
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:00:04 -0500
Subject: [POB] GRP HMSS: was Have ye room, for a wayward sailor?
So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable,
both small and great beasts.
There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play
therein.
For now they were in the rich waters of the south Atlantic,
Waters that could and did support Leviathan,
Who might often be seen sporting in the the distance.
From: Doug Essinger-Hileman
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:25:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP HMSS: was Have ye room, for a wayward sailor?
Drowsy Frowsy List Greeter, Rated Able
39°51'06"N
79°54'01"W
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:14:54 -0500
Subject: [POB] POB error was: GRP HMSS: was Have ye room, for a wayward sailor?
Mollyhawks,
From: Kyle Lerfald
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:37:03 -0800
Subject: Re: [POB] POB error was: GRP HMSS: was Have ye room, for a wayward sailor?
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:15:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] POB error was: GRP HMSS: was Have ye room, for a wayward sailor?
From: Curtis Ruder
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:15:34 -0500
Subject: [POB] HMS Surprise
30:28:1.556 N
84:16:38.860 W
From:Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:44:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] HMS Surprise
From: Thistle Farm
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:35:36 -0500
Subject: [POB] Unappreciated
From: John Finneran
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 01:33:51 -0800
Subject: [POB] GRP: HMSS: DiI and Hussein
From: Steve Ross
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:00:01 -0600
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP: HMSS: DiI and Hussein
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Curtis Ruder
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:59:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] Hussein
30:28:1.556 N
84:16:38.860 W
From: Rowen 84
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 13:39:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP: HMSS: DiI and Hussein
From: Peter Mackay
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:43:49 +1100
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP: HMSS: DiI and Hussein
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:18:02 -0800
Subject: Re: [POB] [POBA thought about Stephen (WASGRP: HMSS: DiI and Hussein)
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 01:54:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [POB] [POBA thought about Stephen (WASGRP: HMSS: DiI and Hussein)
From: Steve Ross
Sent: 12/11/2001 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP: HMSS: Dil and Hussein
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: 12/11/2001 03:15 PM PST
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP: HMSS: Dil and Hussein
From: Linnea
Sent: 12/16/2001 11:00 AM EST
Subject: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:50:14 -0700
Subject: Group Read: PC: Another "animal" parallel
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC:Another "animal" parallel
It was striking to read of Stephen's discovery of Testudo aubreii and its role
in his further recovery from the fever of his wound. He had bared his soul in
his delirium, lost his carapace, as it were, to an uncomfortable Jack who had
nursed him of necessity, and the tortoise discovery passage ends with Stephen
crying: "It does me good to see him. This tortoise has quite recovered me,"
he cried, putting his arm round the enormous carapace. As a metaphor, Stephen
is now healing and able to resume his shield against the world of his feelings
for Diana, and his secretive ways in his world of espionage.
I was struck, too, as many Lissuns were, by the parallels between Diana and
Dil. And POB makes it clear that there is a parallel: Dil feeds a sloppy Stephen
on the glacis of the fort during the festival, just before Diana spies him from
her barouche below, and later she feeds him, sitting cross-legged like a native,
when she realizes how badly his hands were mauled under torture by the French.
Another note played in the POB symphony are his naming of the ships at the end,
the Euryalus and Ethalion .
From:Steve Ross
Sent: 12/17/2001 02:43 PM
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
[On PC]:
Here one must believe that the stage is set for Stephen's encounters with
Diana in India in HMSS, first in Bombay when he becomes physically ill when
he's rejected by her and she urges him to don a robe; and when he sees her
again in Calcutta, hoping for her answer to his proposal, and finds her in
Cannning's house with tigers chained in recesses in the porticoes. PC was
published in 1972 and HMSS in 1973, so this must be deliberate. Stephen
and has sympathy for Canning as a Jew; he surely must have understood why
Canning would have been jealous when finding Stephen sitting in Bombay in
shirt and breeches and then in Calcutta with Diana clad only in a gown, a
jealousy fanned by his own predicament with his wife due to arrive, and
Diana's frequent male visitors.
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: 12/17/2001 12:43 PM PST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From:"Matt@Sea"
Sent: 12/17/2001 05:50 PM EST
Subject: Re: [POB] [Possible THD Spoiler] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers
& Dil
Matt
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: 12/17/2001 04:13 PM PST
Subject: Re: [POB] [Possible THD Spoiler] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers
& Dil
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: 12/18/2001 10:57 AM EST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: Duty, was HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: 12/18/2001 08:10 AM PST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: Duty, was HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From: Steven K Ross
Sent: 12/18/2001 01:38 PM
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: Duty, was HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
--Steve Ross
From: Linnea
Sent: 12/18/2001 04:15 PM EST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
Diana seems to have quick sympathy and generosity, as we see in her treatment
of Dil and empathy for Stephen. What fundamental values do any of them have,
excluding Stephen, whose private thoughts are the foil for all the others' more
forthright actions. He, alone of the four major characters, is given to reflection
and journal-keeping. We are never allowed into Diana's and Sophie's private
thoughts. Jack of course is a decent, accomplished man in his vocation, inspired
at times when he fights, and I do love Jack.
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: 12/18/2001 01:11 PM PST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From: Curtis Ruder
Sent: 12/18/2001 04:15 PM EST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: 12/18/2001 10:28 PM GMT
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read
Surely his causes are very much dovetailed/manipulated by the fact that
O'Brians initial hero is an officer of the Royal Navy.. and the stories that
must follow(if you write 20 books)
'It's the heaviest hurley that ever yet was cut from the deadly upas-tree.'
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: 12/19/2001 09:37 AM ZE11
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: 12/18/2001 08:03 PM EST
Subject: [POB] Stephen's ambitions (was: RE: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises
& Tigers & Dil)
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: 12/18/2001 08:04 PM EST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read
Stephen evolved.
A Catalan who studied at Trinity
A small pale almost ugly Irish male- no such thing !
Forsooth
(I rest my case)
Alec O F
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: 12/18/2001 09:43 PM EST
Subject: [POB] fair food and other gray areas
From: Steven K Ross
Sent: 12/18/2001 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read: HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From: Linnea
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:33 PM
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:49 PM
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: 12/19/2001 09:24 AM EST
Subject: Re: [POB] Group Read Duty
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
From: Bob Saldeen
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
From: Jill H Bennett
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
San Martin
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:29 PM
Subject: Venus Sky Trap WAS: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
From: Martin
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
Rec. Inst., Vol. VIII, 1807.
Published by Delance, Paris, 1808.
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Paul B.
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read: Duty, was HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From: Vanessa Brown
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read: Duty, was HMSS Tortoises & Tigers & Dil
From: Martin
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Astronomical Observations
From: Linnea
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:46:47 -0500
Subject: Group Read: TMC? HMSS?
Somewhere in The Mauritius Command or HMS Surprise, Jack Aubrey's father is
being described as a "camp and country gentleman," or something like
that.
I was surprised to see "camp" used this way; I thought it was a
modern word.
adjective
INFORMAL
(of a man) behaving and dressing in a way that is similar to a woman and
often intended to be noticed by others or, (of people or styles in general)
intentionally artificial, usually in a way that is amusing
What's the name of that amazingly camp actor with the high voice and a
funny walk?
Their shows are always incredibly camp and flamboyant.
noun [U]
INFORMAL
The latest production of the opera is very high camp - all the men are
dressed up as women.
Patrick was a master of innuendo and high-camp comedy.
verb [I]
INFORMAL
If an actor camps it up, he or she gives an artificial and often amusing
performance in which emotions are expressed too strongly and the movements
of the hands and body are more noticeable than they would usually be.
From: Charlezzzz@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:49:59 EST
Subject: Camp: was, Goup Read: TMC? HMSS?
From: Edmund Burton
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:47:41 -0600
Subject: Re: Group Read: TMC? HMSS?
From: Bob Kegel
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:50:14 -0800
Subject: Re: Group Read: TMC? HMSS?
From: Gerry Strey
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:08:18 -0600
Subject: Re: Group Read: TMC? HMSS?
Madison, Wisconsin
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:17:38 EST
Subject: Re: Group Read: TMC? HMSS?
From: Kyle Lerfald
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:52:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Group Read: TMC? HMSS?
From: Edmund Burton
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 20:02:29 -0600
Subject: Re: Group Read: TMC? HMSS?
From: Margarita Baez
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 7:25 AM
Subject: HMSSŠ with much more than a minute lost!.
Margarita de Baez
10° 30' 13"N 66° 47' 9" W
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS?with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Margarita Baez
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS?with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS?with much more than a minute lost!.
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS?with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Nathan Varnum
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:29 PM
Subject: HMSS: Jack's refusal of Diana
From: Nathan Varnum
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!.
Thy chase had a beast in view
Thy wars brought nothing about
Thy lovers were all untrue
From: Nathan Varnum
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:48 PM
Subject: Jack, Diana and Stephen (was: Re: [POB] HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!)
From: Ted
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!.
From: sue reynolds
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen and Diana and Jack
From: homermeyn
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS? with much more than a minute lost!.
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen and Diana and Jack
From: Katherine T
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: All, all of a piece
Weary, weary of my weight,
Let me, let me drop my freight,
And leave the world behind.
I could not bear
Another year
The load of human-kind.
* * *
MOMUS
The world was a fool, e'er since it begun,
And since neither Janus, nor Chronos, nor I,
Can hinder the crimes,
Or mend the bad times,
'Tis better to laugh than to cry.
Enter DIANA
With horns and with hounds I waken the day,
And hie to my woodland walks away;
I tuck up my robe, and am buskin'd soon,
And tie to my forehead a waxing moon.
I course the fleet stag, unkennel the fox,
And chase the wild goats o'er summits of rocks.
With shouting and hooting we pierce through the sky;
And Echo turns hunter, and doubles the cry.
***
CHORUS OF ALL
Then our age was in its prime,
Free from rage, and free from crime,
A very merry, dancing, drinking,
Laughing, quaffing, and unthinking time.
* * *
Enter MARS
Inspire the vocal brass, inspire;
The world is past its infant age:
Arms and honour,
Arms and honour,
Set the martial mind on fire,
* * *
MOMUS
Thy sword within the scabbard keep,
And let mankind agree,
Better the world were fast asleep,
Than kept awake by thee.
* * *
Enter VENUS
Calms appear, when storms are past;
Love will have his hour at last:
Nature is my kindly care;
Mars destroys, and I repair;
Take me, take me, while you may,
Venus comes not ev'ry day.
***
CHRONOS
The world was then so light,
I scarcely felt the weight;
Joy rul'd the day, and love the night.
But since the Queen of Pleasure left the ground,
I faint, I lag,
And feebly drag
The pond'rous Orb around.
All, all of a piece throughout;
MOMUS
(pointing to Diana)
Thy chase had a beast in view
(to Mars)
Thy wars brought nothing about;
(to Venus)
Thy lovers were all untrue.
JANUS
'Tis well an old age is out,
And time to begin a new.
* * *
Dance of huntsmen, nymphs, warriors, and lovers.
From: HrgSmes@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: All, all of a piece
From: Mary S
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: All, all of a piece
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
Return to Main Page