Talk:Aubrey–Maturin series

Humour

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. —Preceding 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)

Trimed - could do with some more considered copy editing and source - inline citations are rather sparse here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:25, 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)

Do you think this material is truly that notable to warrant such an article? If so I would agree with the article title you suggest. Also if such an article were to be written it would need to be better sourced with plenty of third party references and in-line citations. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Food

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)

There were two spinoff books by fans -- authorized i think:

1. A Sea of Words, a glossary of technical terms and geography, and IIRC characters and ships
2. A book of recipes

One or both should be excellent resources for the article.
--Jerzy•t 06:11, 9 April 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)

The book of recipes mentioned above is Lobscouse and Spotted Dog by Anne Chotzinoff Grossman and Lisa Grossman Thomas, published by W.W.Norton in the US. A description can be found at Norton's website with extracts from the book, but not unfortunately Soused Hog's Face. Dabbler (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Extended 1814

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've dashed off a quick note - it's not much, but it's something. Shimgray | talk | 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty good as a succinct statement of the case! Cenedi (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have added a couple of refinements including making internal chronology a section on its own. The Fortune of War ends with the battle between the Shannon and Chesapeake, which historically took place on 1 June 1813, so the 'real-time' historical period into which the next 12 books are squeezed is really very short. Cenedi (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe O'Brien used actual naval battles as the basis of many of Jack Aubrey's stories, but I am finding that real life Thomas Cochrane's battles are the story line for more than one book in this series. Did Patrick O'brien create a guide so that a reader could read the Naval battle that the book battle was based on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.118.202 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No he didn't, but you can find that information in Brown, Anthony Gary (2006). The Patrick O'Brian Muster Book (2nd ed.). Jefferson, NC: MacFarland and Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-9385-2. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"Toilet and sexual Humour"

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 would disagree very strongly. The double-entendres and naughty lavatorial asides are an integral part of the Aubrey-Maturin canon, and are most certainly not the product of the over-active imagination of a single contributor. I'm not sure the "historical context" argument holds up either, because the books are a product of a man of the twentieth century, not the early nineteenth, and although O'Brian has a light touch which elegantly straddles the stylistic gap between modern work and historical pastiche, he writes for effect and always knows what he is doing. Maturin's declaration in Treason's Harbour that he is "a urinator" (ie a diver), or Jack Aubrey's resounding cry "My bankers are Hoares, sir. Hoares." are meant without doubt to raise a smile or a snigger in his twentieth-century readers, as indeed they do. Yes, you can dwell on this aspect of the novel too much. It's like the complaint that TV soap characters never go to the loo, only in reverse - O'Brian's characters are always rushing off to the heads, getting stuck for hours in the quarter-gallery because they overdid the rhubarb purgative, or breaking off discussions to "pump ship" because age has affected their waterworks. It doesn't mean the subject deserves a section to itself - I agree with you, it doesn't - but this aspect of his work should not be neglected in the section on humour, which it is the wery place for a short paragraph on the subject, as Killick might say. --Karenjc 21:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As the contributor who wrote a lot of that section, let me just submit that there are entire books, for example this book, that have scholarly analyses of bawdy humor in various authors - such as Shakespeare, and going back in time, to Chaucer, Boccacio, the plays of Aristophanes... O'Brian is one of the latest in what is a long and honorable tradition. If Shakespeare can joke about farts and sex, and have dialogue laden with double entendre (and indeed, O'Brian uses the shakespearean "country matters" joke at least once in the canon), I dont see why O'Brian cannot. It does deserve a section to itself, the same way the music in O'Brian deserves a section to itself (and a CD to itself - which already exists, with all the Locatelli, Bach etc pieces that are referred to in the canon). srs (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First the music in O'Brian's books often consists of pieces that have not survived to the present day, i.e. O'Brian often invented them. For example, Locatelli never wrote a string quartet, the piece that opens the series. The CDs are of similar music by the same composers.

I think part of the problem is the use of "Toilet and sexual humour" as the heading of the section. It gives a wrong impression of crudity which is not present in O'Brian's bawdy humour. I also think that it goes on too long and could be restricted to a short description and perhaps an example or two. Dabbler (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a passage on the Locatelli Quartet question. As to the main subject of this discussion, I agree that 'toilet and sexual' gives the wrong impression, but 'bawdy humour' is fine as a subsection of the discussion of humour. Trouble is it's too long a subsection in relation to the whole - it gives the idea that O'Brian's humour is MAINLY bawdy, whereas it's just a healthy ingredienmt in a much more all-embracing sense of comedy and irony. These are very funny books in all sorts of ways. Cenedi (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"It doesn't deserve a section" and yet there it is, entirely restored, merely renamed "Bawdy". And still, the tittering little boy insists on having "I believe this booby will suffer me to touch it" and projecting his pre-adolescent mentality on POB's Maturin. This very sad insistence confirms the sordid "public restroom" aspect of Wikipedia. So: to the uninitiated it would appear that, according to the editors of this article, Bawdy Humor (980 words) is a critical element to the canon while Music (269 words) has little import at all. That is truly a shame, but I will make no further attempts at correcting this denigration of POB's accomplishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negriljerry (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That "boobies" wasnt one of my edits. Feel free to edit it out. Oh, and do feel free to add more to the music section - that's a section that could use a lot of additions to it. For example, there was this tune Maturin plays that Aubrey mistakes for La Marseillase, and Stephen says this was an earlier tune on which it was based. Which one would that be? srs (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the content of the humor sections could be moved into a new article with a pertinent title referring readers with a link, like the article on the Recurring Characters in the Aubrey-Maturin Series. Would that make contributors to this discussion happy? Since humor is an outstanding element in O'Brian's writing of this series, it seems to make sense. Any feedback?Voiceperson (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Swear words

I beg pardon if this has been covered — I'm only on the 4th book and skimmed the article to avoid spoilers — 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.71.90 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Move Humor and Bawdy Humor to a New Article

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)

Jack Aubrey vs. Horatio Hornblower

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.76.103 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagination and Citation Problems

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)

Most of the later Fontana/HarperCollins hardcover and paperbacks from Letter of Marque to Blue at the Mizzen were printed from plates which were also used by Norton so they retain the same pagination. Earlier Collins/Fontana printings did have different pagination. See The Gunroom website pagination list for details of how the various editions differ. Dabbler (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting information and an amazing link. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to detail the differences and similarities. It certainly answers the question I had, whether it was true that different page numbering exists.

Considering that there are sometimes differences, do you (or others) have an opinion on the matter of in-line versus footnote page references? Voiceperson (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of normal practice the edition of the work being cited should be included. Not necessarily in every citation but certainly in the reference one; or the one being refered to in Op. Cit.s etc. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

HMS

"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)

Continuity errors within the series

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.118.1 (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Anachonistic diagram

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)

Style and structure of the novels

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)

This may not answer the question. I tried to look up Spaghetti Westerns where I thought I read that in filming (not reading), the audience knew what happened when the character did. There was no "B" movie surprise with a character walking into the basement, for example. I was not able to find this reference (even for a film), but I think you have a good question that should be answered.

Having said that, most novels (and hour+ long tv shows) today (and even years ago. Dumas, for example) have more than one "story" evolving. These story lines may (or may not) resolve in the end. In the Aubrey-Maturin series, they all resolve. Student7 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The point that is being made in the "Style" section about the only two exceptions of the novels being in the voices of the two main characters is factually wrong or misleadingly put at the least. There are numerary counter-examples in the first two novels alone (recall Aubrey's assistant's (i cannot remember the nautical term) boast to his family that the attack on a frigate was his idea in Master and Commander, and the conversation between the girls and the Admiral in the beginning of Post Captain) - the section should be clarified or better even deleted, as i think it does not make a valid point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.228.110 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The instances recalled by the IP address above are very short and do not change the plot, nor give the reader key information that the main characters do not know. I forget which novel it is and the person above did not name the novel either, but on the return home from a successful voyage, readers learn the reactions to that success from a few other characters, sharing their own stories with their families. The reader is given more flavor of how success is seen by other characters, but it is not at all like the shift in Narrative voice when the reader learns facts and meetings that are unknown to Maturin, and what we readers know affects the flow of the plot. I do not recall numerous (or numerary) examples of the story being told by other than the voices or letters of the two main characters, save the exceptions noted, for key events and plot flow. Better if the specific novel can be named, by either of us. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the sentence "The stories are told in the voices of the two main characters, Aubrey and Maturin, by dialogue with each other or other characters, or in running letters both write aboard ship on long voyages, with two exceptions." is factually wrong and should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.0.156 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. Further, I think the text should remain as is, until a source that discusses the style of the novels can be cited on this point, the narrative voice. Otherwise we are having a discussion based on what some might call Original Research, frowned upon by Wikipedia. We need to find a good reliable source on this aspect. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your post, or better, set up an account for yourself and then sign your posts. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording told in the voices of the two main characters is too strong if taken literally, given the following mention of dialogue with [...] other characters. It could well be modified to say "told mostly..." or "mostly told...". Dhtwiki (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the narrative voice, not that there is no dialogue with other characters. Some authors write as the all-knowing author, who speaks in the third person (he, she, it contrasted to I and we) and moves from place to place or from one character to another to reveal the plot in that fashion. O'Brian does not use that method in this series; instead he tells the story from the point of view of the two main characters, singly or together, writing in a journal or a running letter, or in dialogue with other characters of each novel, but those two characters speak in first person. You can find many sources to provide the basic explanation of this method for telling a story in fiction, which was taught to me in grade and high school. This being Wikipedia, we need to get the opinions stated by reliable sources, not our own observations, or worse, redefining what narrative voice means. Let us keep some perspective here! Before making minor or major changes, let us get reliable sources on this series, please. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is quite obviously original research - where is the citation? The wording "the stories are told in the voices of the two main characters with two exceptions" remains factually wrong - you mean to say the plot is only advanced in scenes told in the voices of the main characters? This just leads to a philosophical point about what an advancement of plot entails. Is this spoilery paragraph ("the fate of Diane Villiers") worth that? The gist of the paragraph is: "What some user considers the plot of the novels is only advanced in scenes in the voices of the two main characters, with these two exceptions that some user remembers, there may be others". Hardly a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.132.174 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Master and Commander, at least, starts out in the third person, going on for many paragraphs that way. When is that relinquished? I think the paragraph could stand some modification, and it is completely unsourced, and therefore suspect as original research. If we're to use some term of art such as "narrative voice" let's do so and back it up with a citation or two. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2016 (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. — 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)

The above paragraphs are your view, right? No citation as to O'Brian's style in this series accompanies your list, which is what we await. Let us not get personal, this is about the viewpoint used by the author in these novels. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not my viewpoint, they are quotations from the novels this article is about, contradicting your paragraph of original research. No citation as to O'Brian's style in this series accompanies your paragraph. I seriously wonder what weird satisfaction you get out of inserting your little morsel of misinformation into this Wikipedia page. 2A02:810D:A7C0:22A4:989F:FC3B:380D:55BA (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You signed on just to say that? Please, let us not be personal. Quotations from the novels are selected by you, and are not a citation from an author who wrote about O'Brian's fiction novels, including a comment on style and narrative voice. That is what is needed. It takes a trip to the library, as books have been written on O'Brian's novels. The narrative voice is a normal topic for an article on the series of novels. Agreed on finding a reliable source? --Prairieplant (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is your reliable source on the novels being told from the viewpoint of the two main characters with two exceptions that came to mind? There is none, as there can be none, because it is your original research that has no basis at all in reality. I am out of this discussion now, obviously it is very important to you to have an unsourced paragraph of misinformation in this article, people have gotten kicks from weirder things, it is just a shame that Wikipedia users have to have these great novels spoilt by an aside in a paragraph that's demonstrably wrong.2A02:8109:A640:21F0:78A0:B704:F9CA:8B48 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching this argument unfold and see some valid points on both sides. Some of the information in that paragraph is useful, but some is clearly incorrect. See if my rewrite does the job. Zeng8r (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Zeng8r I reverted your rewrite, leaving it with the two citation needed flags instead. Your may be better, but it needs a source, and the wiki link to third person narration does not count as a source. We need someone who either has the books about O'Brian and this series on their shelf, or will go to a public library to use them, to find commentary by a reliable source on the narrative voice. The topic originated in the article on the novel where O'Brian changes it, having sections told from the view of other characters, unknown to the main characters from whose eyes the stories flow. I hope some of this energy can be devoted to finding that reliable source. I am assuming one exists. I appreciate your efforts and interest in this article, and your calm way of making your point. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, let me make sure that I understanding your argument. You reverted a simple paragraph explaining that the books are mostly written in 3rd person because (you say) it needs a citation, yet you once again restored text which includes two "citation needed" tags and an obviously incorrect statement? That doesn't make any sense. You don't need a source for the 3rd person factoid, as it's not considered "original research" per Wikipedia policy. Thematic interpretations and other in-depth literary analysis or criticism would most definitely require a citation to a good source. This is different, as it's obvious to any reader who skims through the novels. My 4th grade students could tell you that they're predominately written in 3rd person.

I'm beginning to agree with the notion that you have unhelpful ownership issues with this article, or at least that one paragraph. In fact, your actions exactly fit two or three of the items on the list of examples of ownership behaviors linked above. My revision simplified the explanation of the series' narrative point of view and removed the "with only two exceptions" phrase, which is inaccurate. The edit is subject to further tweaks, of course, like any other edit. However, your repeated reverts back to the same flawed text does not improve the article in the least. --Zeng8r (talk) 13:02, 3 April 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)

Wrong summary phrasing

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.106.50 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we use this citation -- who has full access to NY Times Book Reviews?

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/ O’Brian’s 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)

Review of series

Copying this here, from Master and Commander. It may come in useful later:

"Lots of reviewers have compared O'Brian to his fellow naval novelist C.S. Forester, but that's nonsense. This is Jane Austen on a ship of war, with the humanity, joy and pathos of Shakespeare — and brilliantly written."

<ref name="Griffiths">{{Cite web |url=http://www.npr.org/2013/12/01/246427056/a-skeptic-is-swept-away-by-the-bromance-at-sea-in-master |title=A Skeptic Is Swept Away By The Bromance-At-Sea In 'Master' |last=Griffith |first=Nicola |authorlink=Nicola Griffith |website=NPR Books |publication-date=1 December 2013 |access-date=1 March 2017}}</ref>

MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

spelling of author's last name fixed in cite above. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Audio books

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! —SaxTeacher (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

SaxTeacher There are many different narrators of the books in this series. Sometimes one publisher used one narrator all the way through at the time of re-issue of the series. Now that is many technologies ago (from tape to CD to digital file) If you are checking these out from a public library, look to see the name of the narrator on the audio book, the name is always supplied, along with the author. A list of hardback, paperback and audio books is at Fantastic Fiction, which you can sort by the author's name of this series. or a single book title. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)