Is he the best? Of course he is! Unless you don't think so...

Hi there.

Forgive me wading in to a forum where I was unknown until today, but I like the format you have here and would like to add to the discussion.

I first came across Patrick O'Brian's work just after he died, although I had read plenty of CS Forrester before that, and for what it is worth I think O'Brian is an absolute master of historical fiction. His convincing attention to historical detail, his research scholarship into the period and his insightful characterisation all add up to an exceptional author. For me he is the most satisfying author of historical fiction, not just naval but ANY, that I have come across.

I have read some of the other authors mentioned on here elsewhere, but for me many of them cannot match the sheer quality of POB. Some have a good sense of the age of sail, and some also have an expert knowledge of the principles of naval warfare, some can write engagingly, some with insight, some with humour, but O'Brian has it all, for me.

I just wish I had read the series in order rather than at random. I intend to do that in time if I am spared for a few years more.

What do others here like/dislike about the Aubrey/Maturin series? Since I have praised him to the skies, I should try and find a critical word or two. It is difficult for me, since I have come to love his work. If I had to pick an aspect I do not relish I would mention his propensity to kill off beloved characters (won't give examples, in case of spoilers) with a quick sentence. No doubt he aimed to shock by this technique, but I found it hard to handle. And, as has been mentioned on anothrr thread here, Jack Aubrey disguised as a dancing bear was just too much!

Thanks for reading this.

I first read a couple of his books when I was much younger and found the way he used language, although correct, hard to get to grips with. That tended to spoil my enjoyment and I did not persevere with the series. I have subsequently read a few more, however they do seem to rely heavily on a continuing thread so reading the odd one here and there is not a good experience. One of these days I'll invest in bying the missing ones and read them in order.

Perhaps then I'll enjoy them a bit more.

Astrodene wrote:I first read a couple of his books when I was much younger and found the way he used language, although correct, hard to get to grips with. That tended to spoil my enjoyment and I did not persevere with the series. I have subsequently read a few more, however they do seem to rely heavily on a continuing thread so reading the odd one here and there is not a good experience. One of these days I'll invest in bying the missing ones and read them in order.

Perhaps then I'll enjoy them a bit more.

Quite understand that. I was reading them as an adult and found them demanding at first. But the language used is authentic (I have done a bit of research into naval archival materials of late, and I had the benefit of some traiing in the language of the period) and once you get used to the differences between today's usage of language and that of the early 1800s there is no looking back.

I remember having a moment in the first one I read (think it was The Surgeon's Mate) when I thought, no- this is too much like hard work. But by then my curiosity was aroused as i sensed the authenticity. So glad I persevered. To be honest I am amazed that POB is so popular, as at first he is not easy to get into.

If you decide to give them a try again start at the start.

Thanks for your response.

One thing that bothers me about POB, is that he has "borrowed" text from naval writers of that time period. I discovered this by accident and was quite disturbed by it.

susan wrote:One thing that bothers me about POB, is that he has "borrowed" text from naval writers of that time period. I discovered this by accident and was quite disturbed by it.

Interesting. Do you mean borrowed in the sense that he quotes from contemporary writers, or are you saying he was plagiarising?

He acknowledges some sources, but they are mainly first-hand primary sources such as sea captains' logs or letters.

Can you give an example maybe?

Hi Aeneas7c,

I am very interested in Basil Hall (1788–1844), who was a naval officer and a popular author in his time. Here is one sample of POB's work compared to Hall's:

"Muster Clothes at Divisions"

From Treason's Harbour (Chapter 4):

"Mr Calamy," said Captain Aubrey to the young gentleman attached to this division, "tell me what constitutes a well-regulated seaman's kit in high latitudes—a sober, responsible seaman in a King's ship, I mean, not a fly-by-night piss-in-the-corner privateersman that cannot hold his liquour."

"Two blue jackets, sir, one pea jacket, two pair of blue trousers, two pair of shoes, six shirts, four pairs of stockings, two Guernsey frocks, two hats, two black Barcelona handkerchiefs, a comforter, several pair of flannel..." he blushed and in a low voice said "drawers. And two waistcoats; as well as one bed, one pillow, two blankets and two hammocks, sir, if you please."

"And in warm climates?"

"Four duck frocks, sir, four pair of duck trousers, a straw hat, and a canvas one for squalls."

*****

From Hall's Fragments of Voyages and Travels (Series II, Vol. II, Chapter III):

In a well-regulated ship a sailor's kit consists generally of at least two blue jackets, and one pea jacket, which is a sort of lumbering shaggy surtout, or curtailed great-coat... A seaman must also have two pair of blue trousers, two pair of shoes, six shirts, four pair of stockings, two Guernsey frocks, made of a sort of worsted stocking work, without any opening in front; two hats, two black handkerchiefs, and a comforter to wrap round the throat; together with several pair of flannel drawers and waistcoats...

The above forms the kit of a sailor in a ship stationed in high latitudes.

[...]

In warm climates, the stock of a man-of-war sailor consists of four duck frocks, which are more like shirts than anything else...

They must also provide themselves with four pair of duck trousers, a straw hat for fine weather, and a canvass [sic] or beaver one for squalls, though this need not be insisted on.... Each man has, of course, a bed, a pillow, and two blankets; sheets are never heard of. He has also two hammocks, one of which is slung and in use, the other scrubbed, dry, and stowed away, ready to be exchanged for the dirty one.

That is very interesting indeed Susan, thanks for that. I would stop short of calling it plagiarism, but only just: clearly POB is sailing close to the wind there!

I wonder how extensively he does this... I know that he steals a poem which he then attributes to Lieutenant Mowett at one point, but he acknowledges that. I do not recall him acknowledging Hall at any time.

HMS Surprise contains a number of examples running along the same lines. Rearranged enough to avoid the P-word, but still recognizable.

susan wrote:HMS Surprise contains a number of examples running along the same lines. Rearranged enough to avoid the P-word, but still recognizable.

I'm grateful to you for the information. It seems O'Brian was not averse to making quite fulsome use of other writers.

I read elsewhere that a character in Captain Maryatt's The King's Own called Macallan is a ship's surgeon, a diligent amateur naturalist, is physically clumsy and quite unnautical, and enjoyed a close friendship with his captain. He is clearly the inspiration if not the base for POB's Maturin.

Many writers are inspired to write by other writers of course, and many 'borrow' ideas and suggestions from others. It is how these ideas and materials are used that matters, and I think O'Brian liked his writing to be as authentic as possible, and perhaps at times that tendency took him into dangerous waters.

Sorry, no more nautical metaphors, I promise

I've only read the first book so far but I have a few criticism's to make, although overall I enjoyed the book. Also like to add that I have no problems with reading books from this or earlier time periods.

The structure of his writing often frustrated me. If the narrator is going to tell us before hand of an important event he needs to follow it up promptly, not make me wait for several pages until I lose my enthusiasm to read of the venture.

Some important things were not well enough explained while others were over done. The part where Ellis goes overboard and is "revived" by Maturin comes to mind. It was very hard to tell whether the boy had actually lived and he was not mentioned again for quite some time making it further unclear.

The dialogue between characters was at times quite awful. I'm reminded of a quote from Hornblower, "Why must you speak when you have nothing to say?" In many cases I felt that the dialogue did nothing for either the plot or character development and was completely unnecessary. I hate reading friendly banter and small talk (which is dull enough in real life, let alone in a book) unless there is a particular point to it.

I thought overall the book was a bit too bloated, someone should have been harsher with the red pen. Some over indulgent descriptions and as I said above, unnecessary dialogue.

In his final battle against the frigate... I suppose that probably had some historical basis, but the casualty numbers seemed quite unrealistic to me. What was it... 3 out of 50 for Aubrey and 13 out of 300 for the frogs? I also fail to see how 300 men could remain effectively under guard against two dozen. But if there is some real world equivalent I can cop that, seems slightly unrealistic to me though.

However I still enjoyed the book and will definately be reading the other four I have and hoping that they get progressively better.

Ziggy wrote:In his final battle against the frigate... I suppose that probably had some historical basis, but the casualty numbers seemed quite unrealistic to me. What was it... 3 out of 50 for Aubrey and 13 out of 300 for the frogs? I also fail to see how 300 men could remain effectively under guard against two dozen. But if there is some real world equivalent I can cop that, seems slightly unrealistic to me though.

I'm currently researching the 'Today in History' section of the website and such figures do appear. There are cases of great slaughter and also of hardly any deaths on both sides of a battle, and of very unequal casualty lists. Gunnery was a skill practised by some and not others and differing tactics tended to be employed by different nations with the British firing at the hull (and hence the majority of the crew at the guns), and where deadly splinters were created, whilst the French tended to fire at the rigging to disable the ship. If skill or luck placed one ship in a raking position early in a battle you can see very big differnces in the casualties.

Ziggy wrote:I've only read the first book so far but I have a few criticism's to make, although overall I enjoyed the book. Also like to add that I have no problems with reading books from this or earlier time periods.

The structure of his writing often frustrated me. If the narrator is going to tell us before hand of an important event he needs to follow it up promptly, not make me wait for several pages until I lose my enthusiasm to read of the venture.

Some important things were not well enough explained while others were over done. The part where Ellis goes overboard and is "revived" by Maturin comes to mind. It was very hard to tell whether the boy had actually lived and he was not mentioned again for quite some time making it further unclear.

The dialogue between characters was at times quite awful. I'm reminded of a quote from Hornblower, "Why must you speak when you have nothing to say?" In many cases I felt that the dialogue did nothing for either the plot or character development and was completely unnecessary. I hate reading friendly banter and small talk (which is dull enough in real life, let alone in a book) unless there is a particular point to it.

I thought overall the book was a bit too bloated, someone should have been harsher with the red pen. Some over indulgent descriptions and as I said above, unnecessary dialogue.

In his final battle against the frigate... I suppose that probably had some historical basis, but the casualty numbers seemed quite unrealistic to me. What was it... 3 out of 50 for Aubrey and 13 out of 300 for the frogs? I also fail to see how 300 men could remain effectively under guard against two dozen. But if there is some real world equivalent I can cop that, seems slightly unrealistic to me though.

However I still enjoyed the book and will definately be reading the other four I have and hoping that they get progressively better.

One of the most fascinating aspects of literature is that there is such a diversity of opinion to be found on almost any work. It so happens that I disagree with every major criticism you make in this post, but there is no good reason why we should see things similarly and it would be a dull world where consensus existed on everything.

I wouldn't cut a word of any of O'Brian's novels, and for me the dialogue between the characters is one of the main joys of his writing. The conversation always has a purpose, usually several; it reveals deeper aspects of character, informs on social and political history, and almost always moves the plot onwards. The difference between the Aubrey/Maturin series and the normal run of naval fiction is the utter authenticity of his writing; the author so immersed himself in the times and the subject that his writing commands the reader's (or at least this reader's) faith completely.

I'm not sure of your point about the casualty figures you mention; do you think them low for the encounter described? And the reason 300 men could be kept prisoner by two dozen was that they were all kept below decks, with gratings over the hatches to keep them there.

I hope you persist with O'Brian as he is for my money still the best of his genre by some distance.

Well I'm half way through the second book now. Unfortunately I've found it quite dull so far, he has only just gotten a ship after 150 pages or so. I much prefer the books when they are at sea, the parts I dislike the most usually all happen on land. Aubrey walking around in a bears skin for several weeks as a convincing disguise? Keeping in mind that Aubrey is apparently well over 6 feet tall and extremely obese... I don't see it personally, thought that was quite a stretch.

The whole thing between Sophia, Diana, Maturin and Aubrey got very tiresome for me. Also, in the first book he said that Aubrey was Ugly, has hideous burns on his face, has lost all of one ear and most of the other, is extremely fat, bald, etc, yet in this book people keep saying how attractive he is? Seems to be a bit of flip flopping going on there? He is spectacularly ugly sometimes and then women and Maturin say he is very "attractive" other times? Don't quite get it, and they are definately talking about looks and not personality.

Still not finding the dialogue too flash personally and still think there is too much of it.

I shall persist, I do like the Historical accuracy and general flavour of the books so far, but there are things that irk me about them from time to time.

And fair enough about the 13 casualties out of 300 frenchman. Just seems a bit unrealistic to me, firing a broadside into a fairly tightly packed ship I would have thought would kill more people than that. In fact I would have thought a fair few of the Frenchmens own crew would have killed or crippled themselves at the guns seeing as how incompetent they apparently were. Still not sure about 24 men holding 300 even if they are locked below, but I suppose they were meant to be pretty pathetic sailors so it's all good. Presumably O'Brian did his research on those things so I'll just take his word for it. I would have been happier with 30 deaths and a bunch wounded for them, but it's all good.

Ziggy wrote: Aubrey walking around in a bears skin for several weeks as a convincing disguise? Keeping in mind that Aubrey is apparently well over 6 feet tall and extremely obese... I don't see it personally, thought that was quite a stretch.

Yes, not one of his strongest passages.

Maybe we've been missing the point. Could it be that very few real bears were used in trained-bear acts at that time, and audiences weren't really surprised to see a man masquerading as a bear in one of these shows?

Just theorizing ... I forget if Aubrey was actually supposed to be fooling people into thinking he actually was a bear ...