Talk:Aubrey–Maturin series/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Literary review, ie POV?

Now, reading this article in its entirety, the overwhelming impression is of POV literary review, eg: "A lot of the humour in the series come from the two principal characters' malapropisms" "readers know they will have to proceed to the next volume to uncover the details of the resolution " "after a short while a total immersion effect is produced" "The delivery, whether in the form of narration or dialogue, is often so forthright that the reader (or listener) does not perceive it at first"

Certainly much of this true, but there should be citations. God knows there is such a wealth of literary essays on O'Brian that citations should be easy to find. Leeborkman 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. And some citations from the book (page number / book name) for the quotes / vignettes / book reviews. Ditto for any articles that analyze the real incidents that POB based incidents in his books on (Jack's capture of the Sophie and much later, his trial for stock fraud, both based on Cochrane's capture of a much larger ship and his trial, the south american adventures again cochrane, the capture of Grimholm / Groper Island, etc).

Post Captain and Pride and Prejudice?

Has anyone notable pointed out the parallels between these two books? I'm just re-reading PC, and it's quite striking. Mrs Williams = Mrs Bennet. Sophia = Jane. Diana = Elizabeth. Jack and Stephen = Darcy and Bingley, etc, etc. PC is much racier, of course ;-) Leeborkman 05:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But the Williams girls have ten thousand pounds each! Ten thousand pounds would have gone a long way towards making Jane acceptable to Bingley's family, vulgar mother or no. And of course given where Diana ends up, she's rather a combination of Lizzie and Lydia, isn't she? I just re-read PC, and have been studying P&P in some depth recently, and the similarity didn't strike me, though now you point it out I do see it. The "parallel romance" between two sisters and two friends is often used in literature, but rarely so well done as in P&P. In some ways the comparison between P&P and PC on that basis is unfair because the Maturin-Diana romance is carried over several books. I've not finished the series yet, just started it over, so don't give me any spoilers! Maturin is a fascinating character. Laura1822 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While not intended as a direct re-telling, Post Captain is, I believe, an homage to Austen (among other things). I'm fairly certain O'Brian himself said this in an interview but don't have the citation handy. xian (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

What is the status of the de-merge? Right now the first several novel links on this page redirect to the top of this page. (As it stands now, they should go to the anchor on the page where they are individually discussed.) I would fix them but there seems to be an effort afoot here to split the articles out again-- yet nothing recent. What's up? Laura1822 03:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can it be ate, or Aubrey's alleged words

From the article:

"his usual reaction when Stephen points out an interesting bird or animal to him is Can it be ate?"

I would like to see a quotation, where Aubrey is saying such words. From any of the books. --Dart evader 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From The Truelove (or Clarissa Oakes) page 141 of Norton edition.

While the boat was lowering down Stephen, from the gangway, said 'Captain Aubrey, sir, I appeal to you: is not that bird on the edge of the whaler's front platform - top - foretop - an ancient murrelet?'

'Why,' said Jack, considering it, 'I am no expert, as you are aware. But perhaps it does look a little elderly. Can it be ate?'

Maybe not his "usual" reaction, but used at least once. Dabbler 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if such were his "usual reaction", it would be close to moronity. Said once, it should most probably count as a joke. Dart evader 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the second time I saw that - it was Pullings, talking about some beast (a turtle) I think. I guess this was on Desolation Island —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hserus (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Demerge

I'm working purely on the plot summaries and editions lists, trying to expand those of the former that seemed to me to omit key details (particularly about plotlines involving Maturin's personal and professional doings) whilst keeping them reasonably succinct. I'm uncomfortably aware that what I've been doing is making a long article even longer, and that there's a movement afoot to demerge and have separate articles for each book, but I do think that (a) if the article is demerged, we'll need a more detailed plot summary for each book anyway, and (b) if it isn't demerged, a reader should be able to follow all the major plotlines through the series by reading each plot summary in turn.

Is there any kind of consensus on demerge? --Karenjc 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

CAN WE PLEASE DEMERGE THIS HUGE ARTICLE - starting from the section Details of the Individual Books - INTO SEPERATE ARTICLES FOR EACH BOOK. I am prepared to help contribute on expanding the plot summaries for each book if this is required. WHO DO WE NEED TO TALK TO IN ORDER TO GET THIS DONE? CAN AN EDITOR PLEASE HANDLE THIS A.S.A.P.! LET'S GET SOME ACTION ON THISIvankinsman 09:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are individual articles for each book which are currently redirects. If you think that there is too much information here on any one book then you are quite at liberty to remove the content to the separate article leaving only what is necessary here. Remember Wikipedia's slogan "Be bold".

O.K. I will take this project on and create a seperate article page for each book - this should reduce the copious information on the main page and enable users to add more detailed information/participate in more detailed discussion pertinent to each book in the series. I hope most other users feel this is for the best! Ivankinsman 06:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The pages already exist. Some of them already have quite lengthgy articles e.g. Master and Commander. The others currently have redirects back to the main article as there was insufficient information for a full article when they were created. Dabbler 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ivankinsman. I do think this is the best solution and I'll contribute as far as I can to the demerged pages.--Karenjc 12:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

this talk page's reversions

I've left a note on User:Ivankinsman's talk page suggesting that he create his article here: The Hundred Days (novel). I think he was trying to create a new article and talk page but uncertain about how to proceed. Hopefully this clears everything up. --Kyoko 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have just create The Hundred Days (Novel). Part of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that there are two different pages, Aubrey–Maturin series and Aubrey-Maturin series (if you cannot see the difference: The dashes are typographically different). I now have made the one a redirect to the other. I hope this is what you all want. I've also left this message at User:Ivankinsman's talk page. --Stephan Schulz 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This might sound picky, but according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Books_-_literary_works and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), "(novel)" and not "(Novel)" is the standard way to name an article about a book. Please consider moving the article to The Hundred Days (novel) and changing the other version into a redirect. --Kyoko 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm...looks like we now have both. I'll check. I made the page while you wrote here... --Stephan Schulz 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hope I fixed it (and a couple of disambig links). --Stephan Schulz 21:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the info. regarding the plots of the individual novels from the main Aubrey-Maturin series page as these are now all on the individual book's main article pages. Also, most of the novels now have their ISBN nos. and review quotes. Ivankinsman 07:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)