Talk:Master and Commander

message: What is the calendar date when the novel ends?
If we use Thomas Chochrane's capture of El Gamo as a guide, then Master and Commander must end some time after May 6th, 1801...
:Jack witnesses the Battle of Algeciras Bay, so it would have to be after 12 July, 1801.  Post Captain opens three days after the Treaty of Amiens (25 March 1802, so the novel opens on the 28th), so obviously before then. --Badger151 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: My edit summary overran. Its clear that Stephen is penniless for all practical purposes at the start of M&C. He can't afford food or lodging and owes money and has to get an advance on his pay. He may have resources elsewhere but not accessible. Dabbler 30 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)
:I'll let it stand for now until I can re-read and figure out at what point he gained enough money to make the purchase he made in RotM. I was under the impression that he had quite a bit even before he inherited from his godfather. --SarekOfVulcan 30 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)
::Nope, you were right, I was wrong. I'm currently in The Thirteen-Gun Salute, and he talks about his previous lack of money here.--SarekOfVulcan 19:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Penniless

message: I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the character in M&C was named for the Irish author; however, I don't have a citation, and I don't have a problem with my edit being removed. --Tachikoma 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have participated in a lot of speculation on O'Brian discussion groups and email lists over the years and it is an obvious supposition, but I have never yet seen a definitive citation from any O'Brian source. Dabbler 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Stephen Maturin and [[Charles Maturin]] 

message: I'd like to comment on how Jack is able to acquire a larger main yard - through intentionally springing his old one and by trading his 12-lber cannon for the new yard, but "through trickery" doesn't really seem the right way to describe it.  Anyone have thoughts? --Badger151 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A thorough understanding of how to work naval bureaucracy is probably the best way of looking at it - and he doesn't so much trade the cannon for the spar as use their return to distract the hoarding chief of the dockyard from the fact that some of his stores are actually being issued... 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Jack is able to get a larger spar for his mainsail 

message: Can someone fix the link at the right hand side of the page to the main Post Captain article? Ivankinsman (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Dabbler (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: the main article says the novel was first published in 1812.  Could somebody please fix that?
Thanks,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjohnson68510 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  first published in 1812 

message: It is clear the people who wrote up this article love the book. What about reviewers in newspapers, magazines and books? The list of ? in Reviews is ripe for removal. The Kirkus review is not on line at its site. Is it online anywhere else, to be easily quoted? The claim of good reviews needs to be turned into a prose section, not a bullet list of incomplete citations. Any takers for the task?  --Prairieplant (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the Literary section, deleting the Reviews subsection. All its cites are not from the original sources, but collected in Cunningham's book, but no page numbers are given from that book. Several of the reviews from Cunningham's book include comparisons to C S Forester, so those were grouped as the second paragraph and the list deleted. Some on the list had no words from them included, so they are gone. In the first paragraph, the reviews are mixed with the history of the publication in 1969 and the re-issues begun in the late 1980s and continuing to the end of the series, by W. W. Norton publishers in the US. Lacking Cunningham's book, I do not know if what is here reflects what he wrote. I am trusting that the person who quoted from Cunningham did those quotes accurately. In the first paragraph I added sources I have read myself, for the publication history, and the collection of accolades for Master and Commander at the W. W. Norton web site. I think this is better than what was there, but still needs work for style and accuracy of citations.  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs cites to actual reviews, quotes, and discussion of them in Literary/reviews section 

message: The section title Themes has been flagged since 2008, a long time ago, and never improved. Is there any reason to keep it, for the little it adds? My own view of an improvement would be to copy the author's preface into this article, as it speaks to his sources more effectively than a reference to Cochrane's autiobiography.  Other views?   --05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes -- remove for lack of content? 

message: Yes, I think a project to improve all the articles about the books in this series is a worthwhile undertaking, including a fairly similar structure for all the articles. Going slowly suits me, too. I did look at the articles just now, to see they have mainly the same subject headings in each article, but not the same depth under those headings. (Plot summary, characters, ships, allusions or history, series chronology where applicable, publication history, references and for the early novels, External links to the mapping project) Publication History includes the W. W. Norton reissue story in some, but not all the articles. That is a task I might do. Plus a longer list of editions can be supplied. The Reviews / Literary Significance sections vary, depending on how many reviews can be found that address that novel specifically, either at time publication, re-issue, or later. Finding more reviews will be the basis to improve those sections, and possibly allow Theme sections to be written, based on those reviewers by a better writer than I am. I have been told that my habit of quoting such long sections of some reviews is not best practice; in this round of improvement, perhaps a better Reviews section will use shorter quotes (than the entire Kirkus Reviews paragraph, for a typical example you will see whenever Kirkus did a review that I could find).
I would love to see the Geoff Hunt covers added to the articles on the earlier novels (when they were not the First Edition cover), as Collins had him do the covers midway in the series including all previously published novels, and both Collins and Norton use Hunt's covers for all reissues. I think that would fit neatly in Publication History. This is one link that shows all the covers -- I do not know how to get them from another source to an article with proper fair use explanation. http://www.hmssurprise.org/harpercollins-covers-geoff-hunt  I would appreciate the skills of others for that task. Might use Reissue cover by Geoff Hunt or something similar as the caption, with wikilink on Geoff Hunt, artist.
You and I welcome other editors interested in this project. Any excuse to read these novels again, good enough for me. There is a discussion listing Good Articles on novels that might provide inspiration for what a good lead for a good article includes, and how to incorporate the reviews and analysis we do find in the articles, on the talk page for The Yellow Admiral. Talk:The_Yellow_Admiral#Length_of_reviews I have been trying to improve the leads in a spotty fashion, for The Yellow Admiral, The Thirteen Gun Salute, this article and maybe a few others where there are enough reviews. We need to keep in mind that the lead is a summary of what is in the article, so something must go in the article first, then be considered for the lead (also spelled lede by some). The very interesting question about this series to me is, are these books literature or merely genre novels? With better articles and better sources, we might approach that question now and then.  --Prairieplant (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on the 21 articles, raise the quality 

message: This is a proposed informal project to improve and clean up the articles on the Aubrey-Maturin novels. The plan is to take the articles one by one, and to work through slowly but methodically.  Anyone is welcome, of course.
Before we start, it would be useful to discuss generally what needs to be done and where we hope to end up.  Here are my initial thoughts: feedback would be welcome. Once there's reasonable agreement on how to proceed, we can get started.
;Proposed sections for all articles
*Lead
*Plot summary
*Characters
*Ships
*O'Brian's sources
*Other sections where needed (eg Adaptations, Series chronology)
*Literary significance & criticism
*Publication history
*References
*Bibliography
*External links
General issues to be dealt with:
;Style
* Make articles consistent in style and structure, so far as possible
* Comply with MOS:NOVELS and WP:WAF
;Lead
*One paragraph of basic information (title, author, date, number in the series, set in Napoleonic Wars etc). Second paragraph, a few sentences on the highlights of the plot. Third paragraph, summary of the reviews/reception.
*Mention the major turning points of the stories, but accept that the plots are far too complex to provide anything like a full summary. Include external viewpoint, including reference to other novels if needed.
;Plot summary
*Re-write as needed to comply with MOS:PLOT and convert to out-of-universe style; try to follow WP:PLOTSUM
*Improve flow
*Simplify and shorten where possible (there is already too much trivial detail, but no need to be too radical)
*Ensure all major plot points are covered
*Link to previous books as needed for readability
*Don't assume reader knows previous plot details
*Don't link to real persons or ships in this section
;Images
* Upload and add Hunt's covers where missing
;Characters
*This section is already far too long, and mixes names with additional points of the plot not mentioned in the summary. Keep at least the major characters plus perhaps some brief information, but remove all plot points.
*Include links to real persons where they exist
;Ships
* Include links to real ships where they exist.
;O'Brian's sources
*This new section should cover O'Brian's main historical and literary sources. It should replace the dreadful 'Allusions' sections, which are often simply non-encyclopedic crufty lists of things appearing in the novels (the book mentions a 'chimpanzee' and an 'asp', etc). Lists of animals, medicine, music, literature are largely indiscriminate collections of information, and fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Most 'allusions and references' are also WP:OR. These articles are not the place to explain some archaic word, situation or process (better to use wikilinks to the corresponding historical article).
;Literary significance & criticism
* Need to summarise quotations from others. The long quotes in some articles are copyright infringements.
* Add more review opinions, especially of original publications.
* Select quotes to help the reader understand the novel as a work, not just "yet another wonderful book by O'Brian".
;[Notes]
* Delete. Avoid this section where possible. It only encourages editors to add things they have spotted in the novels based on original research.
@,  and others who may be interested. Does this seem reasonable?  If so, I'll make a start on this article, as the first in the series. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally support all of the changes, especially the rewriting of the cruft-iness in the allusions sections. Also, I want to +1 the concerns about the Copyvio for the reviews. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to help, but would love to endorse this work. Sadads (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this seems reasonable. I would comment on the lead, which Sadads has been trying to teach me how to improve. One paragraph of the basic information (title, author, number in the series, set in Napoleonic Wars). Second paragraph, a few sentences on the highlights of the plot of the novel. Third paragraph, summary of the reviews/reception of the novel based on what is in the article. The rules for the plot summaries look good. I am not sure exactly what is meant by the external viewpoint, but I am sure that will be clear when I see a plot summary revised to include more of that. Very organized, good check list. I wish Sadads could join in; maybe you will take a look now & then to see if things are getting better?  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's helpful. Have added the suggestions for the lead to the checklist above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aubrey-Maturin novels - planned improvement project 

message: Ok, ready at long last to make a start on these articles.  I've created a checklist for interested editors to work from, based on the discussion above. Starting now; intending to work slowly through the novels in turn. All contributions welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tasks checklist

message: The plot summary has Aubrey being released from French captivity after watching the Battle of Algeciras from Gibraltar. Is that the true order? Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is correct. First Aubrey sees things from the French ship where he is prisoner of war, then, still a prisoner of war but exchanged, he watches from Gibraltar. After that battle, his court-martial is held, for losing his ship, the Sophie, to the French. The Plot summary does not need the sentences in exactly the order of the text, I believe that is what confuses you. I removed the Clarify tag, as they did watch from Gibraltar, even if that is said before the exchanging in the next sentence. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Everything else is in chronological order, and the current text gives the impression that the French were in possession of Gibraltar. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have clarified it sufficiently.  Others may disagree.  Regardless, there is some very nice work going on here, well done all.  nerdgoonrant (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good. Thanks.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does indeed. Alfie Gandon (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Algeciras 

message: I have used the  template to create columns for the Characters and Ships sections, but I see that Publication history uses  / .  Is there any preference as to which should be used? So far as I can see, both produce a similar result, and both work well when the article is viewed on an iPhone. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  this seems to be one of those frustrating situations where two almost identical methods exist with nothing in particular to recommend one over the other.  They seem to be able to coexist in peace; probably good to not lose much sleep over it?   But if a need for consistency (which I completely understand) demands it, I would say by all means unify them to .  nerdgoonrant (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do that simply for the sake of consistency if nothing else. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred template for columns?

message: According to the infobox, the artist for the 1st US edition (Lippincott) was 'Harvey'. Can we find a source for that, and some more details (eg a first name)? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover artist 

message: This section lists several very minor characters (as do similar sections in other articles in the series).   The Manual of Style/Novels#Characters says "If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader."  That would seem to imply minor characters shouldn't be mentioned at all. Could the section be restricted to major/significant characters only, and the title changed to Principal characters? That would be my preference. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. In the absence of objections I have gone ahead. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I did not see this comment until just now. It pained me a bit to see that carefully constructed list of characters disappear, even the new lieutenant who replaces Dillon is gone. In later novels of this series, I began mentioning in which book a character first appeared, relying on the character lists to be accurate. Further, characters have larger or smaller roles when appearing in more than one novel. I have not checked if any character taken off the list here is mentioned as fist appearing in this novel. This book has a lot of characters, as we are introduced to every facet of operating a sailing ship in 1800. The Plot summary could not be long enough to mention more than a few characters by name, so that Manual of Style guidance seems frustrating here. Middlemarch by George Eliot depicts the life of a whole village in one novel, and its list of characters includes some who are not mentioned in the Plot summary. The other point about naming so many characters with so many distinct roles on the ship that seems pertinent to me, is that O'Brian put forward a full universe for the reader, a significant aspect of this novel and the whole series. If the novel were simply a lead up to the Cochrane events retold in fiction, all those characters would not need names and personalities, in my view, just job titles like Chips, quartermaster, bosun and the like. Well I am not saying this very well, my reason for valuing the long list. Yes, there is a list of recurring characters in the series, but it is not as well-written as I expected. I found it easier to make an accurate list in the article for each novel, than to keep that associated article clear, accurate and inclusive of all the novels. The split of main characters and shipmates or minor characters, is that appealing? --Prairieplant (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Prairieplant, we have to bear in mind that we are writing for readers of the encyclopedia, who presumably come to us to learn something about the book. A full character list isn't in the least helpful to readers, and is non-encyclopedic writing (see eg WP:INDISCRIMINATE) even though it might satisfy a collecting instinct among editors who are die-hard O'Brian fans. Until last week the list in this article was so random that it even left out Preserved Killick. Listing characters by their first appearance would be a good thing to do in Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series, though I do agree that that's pretty badly written.  Looking at Featured Articles, I can't see any that have long lists of every possible character, though some do have lists of principal characters with a few sentences (no more) about each.  That could work here, perhaps, allowing us to say a little about Dillon's personality while relying on the Recurring characters article for longer essays.  MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters section