This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AubreyâMaturin series article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books ¡ news ¡ scholar ¡ free images ¡ WP refs) ¡ FENS ¡ JSTOR ¡ TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is maintained by the Napoleonic fiction working group, which may be able to help with questions about the topic, as well as verification and sources. |
Text and/or other creative content from AubreyâMaturin series was copied or moved into The Thirteen Gun Salute with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I think too many examples of his humour are given here. A few give a taste, a few more explain it, two pages is like dissecting the frog. If someone wants a List of jokes from Aubrey-Maturin series go ahead, but not here. Subsolar 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. I am a new reader to the series, and after three books it is obvious that almost none of the Humour or Sexual Humour sections belong here at all. Someone must have let a LitCrit student in here. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.139.167 ( talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally agreed, way too much about humor, to the point of being misleading.
72.43.196.198 (
talk) 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If someone wants to salvage the material, then it could better be put in a separate article Humour in the Aubrey-Maturin series and linked from here. Dabbler ( talk) 12:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I heard some information once about a dinner hosted for Patrick O'Brian by William Waldergrave and some other Aubrey-Maturin fans at the Royal Naval College? The menu for this dinner, I believe, was based on some of the dishes mentioned in the books.
Could anyone write a description on the main article page of this event? I also believe it would be of interest if a reader could insert a section that focuses on the different types of dishes and foodstuffs eaten by the characters in the novels. Ivankinsman ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Those curious about Jack's favorite dish - soused pig's face - follow this link Barnaby the Scrivener ( talk) 21:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Our article: "...although his telling of the war with the US (The Fortune of War-The Yellow Admiral) is much longer than its historical length..."
There's a lovely wording in one of the later books (an introduction?) where he apologises for having started to run out of time "and as such, 1814 takes place three times over", or words to that effect. Does anyone else remember this? It'd be useful to quote here. Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It's in The Far Side of the World, p. x - "in the near future the author (if his readers will bear with him) may be led to make use of hypothetical years, rather like those hypothetical moons used in the calculation of Easter: an 1812a as it were or even an 1812b." Actually, the question of chronology needs to be addressed in the article itself - the fact that the first six books are closely pegged to real historical events, and the following 12 take a detour through a kind of alternate history, in which the years 1813-14 are hugely expanded to accomodate events which by their very nature ought to occupy six or seven years. Cenedi ( talk) 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been patient while waiting for other contributors to weigh in on, and edit or edit out, this section. Now I must post my intention to largely gut this largely irrelevant portion of the article.
Although this should not be needed, I will ask for no passionate response and please no flaming. I do believe the contributor is a sincere afficionado, but misguided.
The characterization of O'Brian's humor in the canon as "toilet" or "sexual" reflects the readers contemporary mores and attitudes and disregards entirely the historical context. That is the most generous criticism. However when I read a paragraph relating the common avian species identification, and the seamens' jibe of, "boobies" as somehow related to sex and/or breasts we really must draw the line - this is the contributor's own invention out of thin air.
I'm anything but a prude and will reference my own attitude quickly and only for clarification: I spent 30 years as a working and traveling rock 'n' roll musician, an occupation which lends itself to the most coarse language possible - in fact we felt a distant kinship with sailors searching for the next port.
While the wit of O'Brian has had many if not most devotees laughing out loud on many occasion, there simply is no major feature to the POB canon of "toilet and sexual humor", and the section is at best innacurate and at worst grossly insulting to the author.
Negriljerry ( talk) 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg pardon if this has been covered â I'm only on the 4th book and skimmed the article to avoid spoilers â but can anyone explain why O'Brian sometimes writes swear words with an ellipsis in the old manner ("I'll be d---d if I do", etc.), and sometimes in clear ("I was shipmates along of you in Sophie, when we fucked the big Spaniard. Don't say no, sir.")?
Paul Magnussen ( talk) 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this too (I've read the series 2.3 times) and I think it has to do with when the books were published. Perhaps his earliest editors simply asked him to do this, as it is clearly not out of personal prudishness on his part. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.71.90 ( talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I read the discussion on humor above, and it makes sense to me to bring the article back into proportion among the sections by shortening the two dealing with humor. Several editors have contributed research in the Humor and Bawdy Humor sections, and it would be a terrible shame to lose this research. The idea floated above, of moving the sections to a new article, would solve the problem. I am willing to go ahead and do this. I would make a heading in the article here with a statement about O'Brian's humor and a link to a new article: Patrick O'Brian's Humor in the Aubrey-Maturin Seriew. This would be followed with a short statement and then the two sections moved from this article to the new one in toto. I won't do this for a while in order that other O'Brian readers have a chance to voice their opinions here. Hammerdrill ( talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Has nobody noticed that the characterof Jack Aubrey has been devised by inverting every single characteristic of Hornblower?
Hornblower is thin, tone deaf, introspective, lonely, seasick, unucky with prize money ... und so weiter. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.76.103 ( talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand page numbers differ in the Collins and the Norton publications. If that is so, in-line references with page numbers (but no publisher, as in this article) could be misleading. There can also be a problem of inconsistency, when citations calling for page numbers are treated both with in-line references and footnotes. Perhaps this can be solved in one of two ways: put a statement at the top of the article to the effect that page numbers will refer to either of the publisher editions; or use standard wikipedia footnotes which will refer to both publisher and page number. (Standard footnotes will still appear when called for.)
This problem is addressed in the article on Recurring Characters in the Aubrey-Maturin Series on the discussion page. In that article the solution is for in-line references with a sentence at the top of the article specifying the publisher.
Since verifiability is a major issue in Wikipedia articles, it seems this should be fixed.
What step do people think should be taken here?
Voiceperson (
talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"HMS" stood, at the time of the series, for His Majesty's Ship. In the series, it is correctly used only to refer to Ships. A Ship was, properly, a vessel with a bowsprit and three square-rigged masts, each with topmast and topgallant mast (ref: Peter Kemp, The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea).
Wikipedia should follow the usage in the Aubrey/Maturin series, referring to each vessel as it is referred to there. In particular, Sophie is not HMS Sophie but HM Sloop Sophie, as in Aubrey's orders. And, although the anomalous Polychrest had apparently been rated as a post-ship, she was rated as a sloop in order that Aubrey, not then a post-Captain, could have her command - therefore he was ordered to HM Sloop Polychrest.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 16:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I love these books, but find some occasional continuity errors, some of which are pretty severe. The biggest of these is the timing between The Nutmeg of Consolation and The Commodore. Both Maturin and Clarissa Oakes recall having been on the ship Nutmeg of Consolation during Aubrey's mission to Moahu. In fact, he was on the Surprise, and had left the Nutmeg in the hands of Lt. Fielding when he rendezvoused with Pullings and the Surprise in the China Sea. Clarissa would never have seen the Nutmeg, so she wouldn't remember it as she claims to do. I could see Maturin possibly getting things confused; it's in his character. But this is a stretch, even for him. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.118.1 ( talk) 17:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The diagram of a ship of war is labelled "contemporary" when it dates from 1728. This is like putting in a diagram of a battleship of the 1920s and claiming that it is representative of modern warships of today. Either the diagram or the word "contemporary" should be removed. Urselius ( talk) 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
In the section on the style of the novels, nothing is mentioned specifically about how the narration proceeds. Could anyone with the appropriate knowledge and suitable references go into this for a sentence or two? By this I mean that the stories are generally related as the views, from direction conversation, reflection (words thought but not spoken aloud) or letters or notes by Aubrey or by Maturin. These are not told by the all-knowing author who relates events unknown to the main characters. This came to mind in reading Treason's Harbour, where a change is included: the reader hears direct conversation by the French spy Lesueur, which neither Aubrey nor Maturin hear or overhear. The main characters continue to figure out who is at the bottom of their problems, while the reader already has direct insights into Andrew Wray's motives and actions. I think this is termed the narrative point of view, per the Wikipedia article Narrative mode. This is far from my own area of expertise in literature, so I think it wise for another to add such sentences. I did put a paragraph in the article on Treason's Harbour, for however long it may last, as I have no references at hand on this aspect of O'Brian's writing in this series of novels, nor for historical fiction in general. This is my second time through the novels, but the first time I noticed this change in the narrator's voice, and how it foretells the ending. If I am all wrong about this, and several novels have crucial sections where the story is advanced by characters not in conversation with Aubrey or Maturin, please speak up. Seafaring terms are explained to the reader in the form of Aubrey or his crew members explaining them to Maturin, or Maturin trying his hand at explaining them to yet newer passengers on his majesty's ships, which is all direct conversation with Maturin, and that is explained in the Style section. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 06:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
All the novels are in the third person (apart from letters and so on). That's not what Prairieplant means. The user is trying to say that scenes that advance the plot invariably have either Aubrey or Maturin present, scenes in which they are not present do not advance the plot. Prairieplant learned in High School that this is called "narrative voice" and that the only two exceptions to this are to be mentioned in this Wikipedia article. The problems with this are these:
1) Factually wrong - Passages in Post Captain (the conversation where the girls plot with the Admiral to have Aubrey and Maturin over for tea in chapter one) and HMS Suprise (the opening of the book, the Admiralty having a discussion over what to do with prize money) where neither Aubrey nor Maturin are present advance the plot (both even setting the plot of the whole novels in motion) - these are just examples from book 2 and 3 of the series of 20.
2) Even one of the allegedly 2 exceptions to this rule in the paragraph (the conversation of the sailors) does not qualify as an exception (that scene advances the plot more than the opening scene of book 3 does?)
3) The whole thing is original research, if you want to count "this came to mind" as research.
4) Who cares? What information that is pertinent to anyone would be given to a reader wanting to find out more about this series of books by the paragraph, even if the information in it wasn't so demonstrably wrong. ;
The whole paragraph should be deleted. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.217.56 ( talk) 11:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Here are further examples of scenes told from an omniscient viewpoint in the Aubrey-Maturin series, neither by dialogue between the main characters nor by running letters, taken directly from the books, containing information known to neither of the main characters and showing that the paragraph in question is factually wrong: Book 5 - Desolation Island, page 43: "What he did not know, however, for his mind was dull that morning, was that the Admiral was lying: Mrs Wogan had possessed herself, among other thing, of some naval papers through a junior civil lord of the Admiralty;" Book 6 - The Fortune of War, page 235: "Dr Maturin is to marry Mrs Villiers and taker her away with him?" cried Herapath, perfectly aware that if Diana were to vanish Louisa Wogan would take her place; that Louisa was at present in the country with Johnson; and that Johnson would wish to have no part of his Caroline. Book 10 - The Far Side of the World, page 7: "God damn and blast the man," cried the Admiral, looking angrily at the clock. "Let him go and... no: we must not offend the Moors. I shall not have time for Aubrey. Pray tell him so, Mr Yarrow - make my excuses - force majeure - do the civil thing - bid him to dinner and let him bring Dr Maturin; Book 10 - The Far Side of the World, page 21 (omniscient narrator describing Maturin) ...although he was wary, percipient, and acute enough to have survived several campaigns [...] he was by no means omniscient; he was capable of making mistakes and he had no suspicion of the fact that Wray was a French agent. ... Also lets not forget the first chapter of book 3 - HMS Surprise, a meeting of the Admiralty with neither Aubrey nor Maturin present, in which Aubrey`s prize money gets taken away and Maturins cover as a secret agent is blown, setting the whole plot in motion. This should be sufficient evidence to anyone that the paragraph in question is factually wrong. It is uncited, original research, in the best case clueless in the worst a misguided attempt to mislead. User Prairieplant is very proud of his paragraph that he made up all by himself, but that cannot be a reason for it to exist. 171.6.222.21 ( talk) 10:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I read this discussion with some fascination. I've just finished reading the series for the second time myself, and hadn't given much conscious thought to shifts in narrative voice throughout. I have to respectfully tell you @ Prairieplant: that you will likely be disappointed if you think you will find a reference in a scholarly article about the series which includes a description of the narrative style. It's too straightforward to merit debate. The novels are written in the third-person, with ocassional shifts to the first person in the letters and Stephen's journal. It's a direct observation, and doesn't require citation. It's like asking for a citation to prove that they're written in English. I would also suggest that the shifts away from Jack or Stephen's POV is actually fairly common, but never for very long. But I'm just going to remove the citation needed tags. nerdgoonrant ( talk) 00:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
this phrase: Aubrey is direct and forthright while Stephen is subtle and cunning, mirroring the overall personality of each man, especially regarding warfare tactics. seems wrong. Aubrey is often quite cunning in his warfare, use of flags, lanterns, etc. I would encourage a small edit: Aubrey is direct and forthright while Stephen is subtle and cunning, mirroring the overall personality of each man, although in warfare, Aubrey uses both, but closes with the former. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.106.50 ( talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I read the start of this article by Christopher Hitchens, what is shown for free. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2000/03/09/obrians-great-voyage/ OâBrianâs Great Voyage from March 2009. I suspect there might be usable quotes for the literary significance section of this article. If I get where I can read the whole article I will do it, but if someone else reads it sooner, please see what could be added. I have already used quotes from the review by Hitchens in Slate on line magazine when the movie came out, as he interlaced his remarks about the movie and the books, in particular the importance of Stephen Maturin as a character in this series. At any rate, please keep this section here until I or someone can follow out the link to see the complete article -- Prairieplant ( talk) 02:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Copying this here, from Master and Commander. It may come in useful later:
MichaelMaggs ( talk) 10:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to request a list of the audio versions of the books be added to the page, including the name of the narrator and publisher. Not sure where to find this information, but would be obliged if one of the other editors of this page could share it.
This would be useful to someone like myself who is partway through the series and obtains the next novel as an audiobook, only to find that it has a different narrator than the previous books. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the first three novels as read by Simon Vance. I eagerly downloaded the next ('The Mauritius Command') from the library... but was HMS surprised to hear a different narrator, who does different voices for the characters! â SaxTeacher (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AubreyâMaturin series article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books ¡ news ¡ scholar ¡ free images ¡ WP refs) ¡ FENS ¡ JSTOR ¡ TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is maintained by the Napoleonic fiction working group, which may be able to help with questions about the topic, as well as verification and sources. |
Text and/or other creative content from AubreyâMaturin series was copied or moved into The Thirteen Gun Salute with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
I think too many examples of his humour are given here. A few give a taste, a few more explain it, two pages is like dissecting the frog. If someone wants a List of jokes from Aubrey-Maturin series go ahead, but not here. Subsolar 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. I am a new reader to the series, and after three books it is obvious that almost none of the Humour or Sexual Humour sections belong here at all. Someone must have let a LitCrit student in here. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.139.167 ( talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally agreed, way too much about humor, to the point of being misleading.
72.43.196.198 (
talk) 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If someone wants to salvage the material, then it could better be put in a separate article Humour in the Aubrey-Maturin series and linked from here. Dabbler ( talk) 12:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I heard some information once about a dinner hosted for Patrick O'Brian by William Waldergrave and some other Aubrey-Maturin fans at the Royal Naval College? The menu for this dinner, I believe, was based on some of the dishes mentioned in the books.
Could anyone write a description on the main article page of this event? I also believe it would be of interest if a reader could insert a section that focuses on the different types of dishes and foodstuffs eaten by the characters in the novels. Ivankinsman ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Those curious about Jack's favorite dish - soused pig's face - follow this link Barnaby the Scrivener ( talk) 21:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Our article: "...although his telling of the war with the US (The Fortune of War-The Yellow Admiral) is much longer than its historical length..."
There's a lovely wording in one of the later books (an introduction?) where he apologises for having started to run out of time "and as such, 1814 takes place three times over", or words to that effect. Does anyone else remember this? It'd be useful to quote here. Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It's in The Far Side of the World, p. x - "in the near future the author (if his readers will bear with him) may be led to make use of hypothetical years, rather like those hypothetical moons used in the calculation of Easter: an 1812a as it were or even an 1812b." Actually, the question of chronology needs to be addressed in the article itself - the fact that the first six books are closely pegged to real historical events, and the following 12 take a detour through a kind of alternate history, in which the years 1813-14 are hugely expanded to accomodate events which by their very nature ought to occupy six or seven years. Cenedi ( talk) 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been patient while waiting for other contributors to weigh in on, and edit or edit out, this section. Now I must post my intention to largely gut this largely irrelevant portion of the article.
Although this should not be needed, I will ask for no passionate response and please no flaming. I do believe the contributor is a sincere afficionado, but misguided.
The characterization of O'Brian's humor in the canon as "toilet" or "sexual" reflects the readers contemporary mores and attitudes and disregards entirely the historical context. That is the most generous criticism. However when I read a paragraph relating the common avian species identification, and the seamens' jibe of, "boobies" as somehow related to sex and/or breasts we really must draw the line - this is the contributor's own invention out of thin air.
I'm anything but a prude and will reference my own attitude quickly and only for clarification: I spent 30 years as a working and traveling rock 'n' roll musician, an occupation which lends itself to the most coarse language possible - in fact we felt a distant kinship with sailors searching for the next port.
While the wit of O'Brian has had many if not most devotees laughing out loud on many occasion, there simply is no major feature to the POB canon of "toilet and sexual humor", and the section is at best innacurate and at worst grossly insulting to the author.
Negriljerry ( talk) 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg pardon if this has been covered â I'm only on the 4th book and skimmed the article to avoid spoilers â but can anyone explain why O'Brian sometimes writes swear words with an ellipsis in the old manner ("I'll be d---d if I do", etc.), and sometimes in clear ("I was shipmates along of you in Sophie, when we fucked the big Spaniard. Don't say no, sir.")?
Paul Magnussen ( talk) 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this too (I've read the series 2.3 times) and I think it has to do with when the books were published. Perhaps his earliest editors simply asked him to do this, as it is clearly not out of personal prudishness on his part. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.71.90 ( talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I read the discussion on humor above, and it makes sense to me to bring the article back into proportion among the sections by shortening the two dealing with humor. Several editors have contributed research in the Humor and Bawdy Humor sections, and it would be a terrible shame to lose this research. The idea floated above, of moving the sections to a new article, would solve the problem. I am willing to go ahead and do this. I would make a heading in the article here with a statement about O'Brian's humor and a link to a new article: Patrick O'Brian's Humor in the Aubrey-Maturin Seriew. This would be followed with a short statement and then the two sections moved from this article to the new one in toto. I won't do this for a while in order that other O'Brian readers have a chance to voice their opinions here. Hammerdrill ( talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Has nobody noticed that the characterof Jack Aubrey has been devised by inverting every single characteristic of Hornblower?
Hornblower is thin, tone deaf, introspective, lonely, seasick, unucky with prize money ... und so weiter. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.76.103 ( talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand page numbers differ in the Collins and the Norton publications. If that is so, in-line references with page numbers (but no publisher, as in this article) could be misleading. There can also be a problem of inconsistency, when citations calling for page numbers are treated both with in-line references and footnotes. Perhaps this can be solved in one of two ways: put a statement at the top of the article to the effect that page numbers will refer to either of the publisher editions; or use standard wikipedia footnotes which will refer to both publisher and page number. (Standard footnotes will still appear when called for.)
This problem is addressed in the article on Recurring Characters in the Aubrey-Maturin Series on the discussion page. In that article the solution is for in-line references with a sentence at the top of the article specifying the publisher.
Since verifiability is a major issue in Wikipedia articles, it seems this should be fixed.
What step do people think should be taken here?
Voiceperson (
talk) 19:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"HMS" stood, at the time of the series, for His Majesty's Ship. In the series, it is correctly used only to refer to Ships. A Ship was, properly, a vessel with a bowsprit and three square-rigged masts, each with topmast and topgallant mast (ref: Peter Kemp, The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea).
Wikipedia should follow the usage in the Aubrey/Maturin series, referring to each vessel as it is referred to there. In particular, Sophie is not HMS Sophie but HM Sloop Sophie, as in Aubrey's orders. And, although the anomalous Polychrest had apparently been rated as a post-ship, she was rated as a sloop in order that Aubrey, not then a post-Captain, could have her command - therefore he was ordered to HM Sloop Polychrest.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 16:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I love these books, but find some occasional continuity errors, some of which are pretty severe. The biggest of these is the timing between The Nutmeg of Consolation and The Commodore. Both Maturin and Clarissa Oakes recall having been on the ship Nutmeg of Consolation during Aubrey's mission to Moahu. In fact, he was on the Surprise, and had left the Nutmeg in the hands of Lt. Fielding when he rendezvoused with Pullings and the Surprise in the China Sea. Clarissa would never have seen the Nutmeg, so she wouldn't remember it as she claims to do. I could see Maturin possibly getting things confused; it's in his character. But this is a stretch, even for him. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.118.1 ( talk) 17:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The diagram of a ship of war is labelled "contemporary" when it dates from 1728. This is like putting in a diagram of a battleship of the 1920s and claiming that it is representative of modern warships of today. Either the diagram or the word "contemporary" should be removed. Urselius ( talk) 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
In the section on the style of the novels, nothing is mentioned specifically about how the narration proceeds. Could anyone with the appropriate knowledge and suitable references go into this for a sentence or two? By this I mean that the stories are generally related as the views, from direction conversation, reflection (words thought but not spoken aloud) or letters or notes by Aubrey or by Maturin. These are not told by the all-knowing author who relates events unknown to the main characters. This came to mind in reading Treason's Harbour, where a change is included: the reader hears direct conversation by the French spy Lesueur, which neither Aubrey nor Maturin hear or overhear. The main characters continue to figure out who is at the bottom of their problems, while the reader already has direct insights into Andrew Wray's motives and actions. I think this is termed the narrative point of view, per the Wikipedia article Narrative mode. This is far from my own area of expertise in literature, so I think it wise for another to add such sentences. I did put a paragraph in the article on Treason's Harbour, for however long it may last, as I have no references at hand on this aspect of O'Brian's writing in this series of novels, nor for historical fiction in general. This is my second time through the novels, but the first time I noticed this change in the narrator's voice, and how it foretells the ending. If I am all wrong about this, and several novels have crucial sections where the story is advanced by characters not in conversation with Aubrey or Maturin, please speak up. Seafaring terms are explained to the reader in the form of Aubrey or his crew members explaining them to Maturin, or Maturin trying his hand at explaining them to yet newer passengers on his majesty's ships, which is all direct conversation with Maturin, and that is explained in the Style section. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 06:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
All the novels are in the third person (apart from letters and so on). That's not what Prairieplant means. The user is trying to say that scenes that advance the plot invariably have either Aubrey or Maturin present, scenes in which they are not present do not advance the plot. Prairieplant learned in High School that this is called "narrative voice" and that the only two exceptions to this are to be mentioned in this Wikipedia article. The problems with this are these:
1) Factually wrong - Passages in Post Captain (the conversation where the girls plot with the Admiral to have Aubrey and Maturin over for tea in chapter one) and HMS Suprise (the opening of the book, the Admiralty having a discussion over what to do with prize money) where neither Aubrey nor Maturin are present advance the plot (both even setting the plot of the whole novels in motion) - these are just examples from book 2 and 3 of the series of 20.
2) Even one of the allegedly 2 exceptions to this rule in the paragraph (the conversation of the sailors) does not qualify as an exception (that scene advances the plot more than the opening scene of book 3 does?)
3) The whole thing is original research, if you want to count "this came to mind" as research.
4) Who cares? What information that is pertinent to anyone would be given to a reader wanting to find out more about this series of books by the paragraph, even if the information in it wasn't so demonstrably wrong. ;
The whole paragraph should be deleted. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.217.56 ( talk) 11:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Here are further examples of scenes told from an omniscient viewpoint in the Aubrey-Maturin series, neither by dialogue between the main characters nor by running letters, taken directly from the books, containing information known to neither of the main characters and showing that the paragraph in question is factually wrong: Book 5 - Desolation Island, page 43: "What he did not know, however, for his mind was dull that morning, was that the Admiral was lying: Mrs Wogan had possessed herself, among other thing, of some naval papers through a junior civil lord of the Admiralty;" Book 6 - The Fortune of War, page 235: "Dr Maturin is to marry Mrs Villiers and taker her away with him?" cried Herapath, perfectly aware that if Diana were to vanish Louisa Wogan would take her place; that Louisa was at present in the country with Johnson; and that Johnson would wish to have no part of his Caroline. Book 10 - The Far Side of the World, page 7: "God damn and blast the man," cried the Admiral, looking angrily at the clock. "Let him go and... no: we must not offend the Moors. I shall not have time for Aubrey. Pray tell him so, Mr Yarrow - make my excuses - force majeure - do the civil thing - bid him to dinner and let him bring Dr Maturin; Book 10 - The Far Side of the World, page 21 (omniscient narrator describing Maturin) ...although he was wary, percipient, and acute enough to have survived several campaigns [...] he was by no means omniscient; he was capable of making mistakes and he had no suspicion of the fact that Wray was a French agent. ... Also lets not forget the first chapter of book 3 - HMS Surprise, a meeting of the Admiralty with neither Aubrey nor Maturin present, in which Aubrey`s prize money gets taken away and Maturins cover as a secret agent is blown, setting the whole plot in motion. This should be sufficient evidence to anyone that the paragraph in question is factually wrong. It is uncited, original research, in the best case clueless in the worst a misguided attempt to mislead. User Prairieplant is very proud of his paragraph that he made up all by himself, but that cannot be a reason for it to exist. 171.6.222.21 ( talk) 10:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I read this discussion with some fascination. I've just finished reading the series for the second time myself, and hadn't given much conscious thought to shifts in narrative voice throughout. I have to respectfully tell you @ Prairieplant: that you will likely be disappointed if you think you will find a reference in a scholarly article about the series which includes a description of the narrative style. It's too straightforward to merit debate. The novels are written in the third-person, with ocassional shifts to the first person in the letters and Stephen's journal. It's a direct observation, and doesn't require citation. It's like asking for a citation to prove that they're written in English. I would also suggest that the shifts away from Jack or Stephen's POV is actually fairly common, but never for very long. But I'm just going to remove the citation needed tags. nerdgoonrant ( talk) 00:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
this phrase: Aubrey is direct and forthright while Stephen is subtle and cunning, mirroring the overall personality of each man, especially regarding warfare tactics. seems wrong. Aubrey is often quite cunning in his warfare, use of flags, lanterns, etc. I would encourage a small edit: Aubrey is direct and forthright while Stephen is subtle and cunning, mirroring the overall personality of each man, although in warfare, Aubrey uses both, but closes with the former. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.106.50 ( talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I read the start of this article by Christopher Hitchens, what is shown for free. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2000/03/09/obrians-great-voyage/ OâBrianâs Great Voyage from March 2009. I suspect there might be usable quotes for the literary significance section of this article. If I get where I can read the whole article I will do it, but if someone else reads it sooner, please see what could be added. I have already used quotes from the review by Hitchens in Slate on line magazine when the movie came out, as he interlaced his remarks about the movie and the books, in particular the importance of Stephen Maturin as a character in this series. At any rate, please keep this section here until I or someone can follow out the link to see the complete article -- Prairieplant ( talk) 02:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Copying this here, from Master and Commander. It may come in useful later:
MichaelMaggs ( talk) 10:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to request a list of the audio versions of the books be added to the page, including the name of the narrator and publisher. Not sure where to find this information, but would be obliged if one of the other editors of this page could share it.
This would be useful to someone like myself who is partway through the series and obtains the next novel as an audiobook, only to find that it has a different narrator than the previous books. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the first three novels as read by Simon Vance. I eagerly downloaded the next ('The Mauritius Command') from the library... but was HMS surprised to hear a different narrator, who does different voices for the characters! â SaxTeacher (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)