This article is rated C-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. |
- is it really correct? In
The Thirteen Gun Salute there's following piece of dialogue, disproving that identification:
"Kerguelen is what some people call Desolation Island, is it not, sir?" asked Richardson. "So they do. But it is not our Desolation Island, which is smaller, farther south and east. And there is another in about fifty-eight south, to larboard just as you clear the Magellan Strait. I believe there are a good many places that have been called Desolation at one time or another, which is a pretty comment on a sailor's life." This should be somewhat cleared, in my opinion; and relinked, if the location relates to any actually existing location in the southern hemisphere. -- 87.249.145.69 ( talk) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Fru1tbat I am not following your objection to the lead remarking strongly positive reviews 20 years apart. I do not grasp what was in the lead or reviews section that was not in the reviews cited. The full quote from Day of the Ls Angeles Times is this: “And O'Brian's Southern Ocean! It is beyond compare. In "Desolation Island," the fifth of the series, Aubrey's relentless pursuit of the Dutch warship Waakzaamheid in the roaring ocean below the southern tip of Africa, day after day in frightful weather, stirs the emotions of dread and hope in every reader.”
I do not understand what you mean by “British style”, or how that would change the position of Louisa Wogan. Mrs. Wogan’s value as an American intelligence source had been destroyed when she was caught back in England. She was sentenced to be hanged, which was lessened to penal transport to Australia by the actions of a high British authority with whom she apparently had known rather well. Thus, her usefulness as an American agent was gone. The reason Joseph Banks placed Maturin in close association with her onboard ship was to allow him time to mine her for information on the extent of the American intelligence service in Britain, a task all the more important in the face of deteriorating relationships between the two nations and the imminent threat of war. That, and placing Maturin out of the way in the case his powers were diminishing being the second and unstated reason for the mission. Maturin, however, not only learned a great deal about the US intelligence service, but he also took the opportunity to plant misinformation in the hands of Mrs. Wogan in the hopes of undermining the various French intelligence services. The bogus documents he created and passed to her through Herapath he termed “poison.” Through them he hoped to cause American and subsequently French intelligence services to think that certain French operatives were double agents under the pay of Britain, hopefully causing distrust, internal purges, interservice assassinations, and a general disruption in their intelligence function.
The wound to Capt. Aubrey is important because it knocked him senseless, nearly killed him, put his leg in jeopardy and gave rise to the idea in Grant’s head that Capt. Aubrey was unable to command, and that he should supersede him. Grant had been undermining Aubrey for some time. However, when the ship struck ice Grant behaved admirably as they struggled together to keep the ship afloat. When the crew were exhausted and the ship low in the water a crisis was at hand. Aubrey would have preferred Grant stay with the ship, but he did not begrudge him taking the boats, and made sure the boats were provisioned for their long journey north to the Cape. Regardless of the relationship between the two men, the injury to Capt. Aubrey is mentioned in the next paragraph of the article, so the earlier editors apparently thought it worth mentioning. My thinking is that it is better to mention it in time and place, rather than bringing it up later as a partial explanation. Thanks for your consideration. AliciaZag13 ( talk) 23:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-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. |
- is it really correct? In
The Thirteen Gun Salute there's following piece of dialogue, disproving that identification:
"Kerguelen is what some people call Desolation Island, is it not, sir?" asked Richardson. "So they do. But it is not our Desolation Island, which is smaller, farther south and east. And there is another in about fifty-eight south, to larboard just as you clear the Magellan Strait. I believe there are a good many places that have been called Desolation at one time or another, which is a pretty comment on a sailor's life." This should be somewhat cleared, in my opinion; and relinked, if the location relates to any actually existing location in the southern hemisphere. -- 87.249.145.69 ( talk) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Fru1tbat I am not following your objection to the lead remarking strongly positive reviews 20 years apart. I do not grasp what was in the lead or reviews section that was not in the reviews cited. The full quote from Day of the Ls Angeles Times is this: “And O'Brian's Southern Ocean! It is beyond compare. In "Desolation Island," the fifth of the series, Aubrey's relentless pursuit of the Dutch warship Waakzaamheid in the roaring ocean below the southern tip of Africa, day after day in frightful weather, stirs the emotions of dread and hope in every reader.”
I do not understand what you mean by “British style”, or how that would change the position of Louisa Wogan. Mrs. Wogan’s value as an American intelligence source had been destroyed when she was caught back in England. She was sentenced to be hanged, which was lessened to penal transport to Australia by the actions of a high British authority with whom she apparently had known rather well. Thus, her usefulness as an American agent was gone. The reason Joseph Banks placed Maturin in close association with her onboard ship was to allow him time to mine her for information on the extent of the American intelligence service in Britain, a task all the more important in the face of deteriorating relationships between the two nations and the imminent threat of war. That, and placing Maturin out of the way in the case his powers were diminishing being the second and unstated reason for the mission. Maturin, however, not only learned a great deal about the US intelligence service, but he also took the opportunity to plant misinformation in the hands of Mrs. Wogan in the hopes of undermining the various French intelligence services. The bogus documents he created and passed to her through Herapath he termed “poison.” Through them he hoped to cause American and subsequently French intelligence services to think that certain French operatives were double agents under the pay of Britain, hopefully causing distrust, internal purges, interservice assassinations, and a general disruption in their intelligence function.
The wound to Capt. Aubrey is important because it knocked him senseless, nearly killed him, put his leg in jeopardy and gave rise to the idea in Grant’s head that Capt. Aubrey was unable to command, and that he should supersede him. Grant had been undermining Aubrey for some time. However, when the ship struck ice Grant behaved admirably as they struggled together to keep the ship afloat. When the crew were exhausted and the ship low in the water a crisis was at hand. Aubrey would have preferred Grant stay with the ship, but he did not begrudge him taking the boats, and made sure the boats were provisioned for their long journey north to the Cape. Regardless of the relationship between the two men, the injury to Capt. Aubrey is mentioned in the next paragraph of the article, so the earlier editors apparently thought it worth mentioning. My thinking is that it is better to mention it in time and place, rather than bringing it up later as a partial explanation. Thanks for your consideration. AliciaZag13 ( talk) 23:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)