Talk:Aubrey–Maturin series

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Humour 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've dashed off a quick note - it's not much, but it's something. Shimgray | talk | 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty good as a succinct statement of the case! Cenedi (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: No he didn't, but you can find that information in  MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended 1814 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Swear words 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move Humor and Bawdy Humor to a New Article

message: 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)
thread_title: Jack Aubrey vs. Horatio Hornblower

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pagination and Citation Problems

message: "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)
thread_title:  HMS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Continuity errors within the series 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anachonistic diagram 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wrong summary phrasing

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

message: 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."
:
MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: spelling of author's last name fixed in cite above.  --Prairieplant (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of series

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Audio books