|
freebooter posted:The bit where a semi-conscious Maturin is being stretchered onto the island and says to Jack something like "I hope this isn't on my account," and Jack just smiles at him and says "just needed to stretch my legs," is loving perfect. Russell Crowe is great. The chemistry he and Paul Bettany had was just off the charts. I know people think the actors are physically wrong for the roles, but in every other way they nailed it.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, what's a fritoon Sadly, I couldn't find any fritoons in LOBSCOUSE & SPOTTED DOG. D:
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
I did find a reference stating "Fritoon, a Venetian street meal, is necessarily a paper cone filled with seafood and fried vegetables. (a bit like an Italian edition of the northern tempura) and eats to go."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I did find a reference stating "Fritoon, a Venetian street meal, is necessarily a paper cone filled with seafood and fried vegetables. (a bit like an Italian edition of the northern tempura) and eats to go." thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:The chemistry he and Paul Bettany had was just off the charts. I know people think the actors are physically wrong for the roles, but in every other way they nailed it. I even like Russel Crowe as Aubrey. Bettany's just too pretty and too tall for Maturin though. Like, he does a good job, he's just too tall and too pale and too pretty. It's mostly Jack's movie though so it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I even like Russel Crowe as Aubrey. Bettany's just too pretty and too tall for Maturin though. Like, he does a good job, he's just too tall and too pale and too pretty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Paul Bettany is... too pretty for Maturin. What kind of Dickensian abomination to you have in mind? oh, you know, somewhere between Steve Buscemi and Adrian Brody. Not someone tall and blonde.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Paul Bettany is... too pretty for Maturin. What kind of Dickensian abomination to you have in mind? He’s not an obvious Hollywood beefcake but I think it’s fair to say he doesn’t really match Maturin’s description in the books (short, scruffy, very much non-handsome).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Paul Bettany is... too pretty for Maturin. What kind of Dickensian abomination to you have in mind? Bettany has been cast as an angel at least once. Maturin is short, skinny, of "a muddy complexion" has receding hair and shaves twice a week. One of the few ways the Bettany portrayal agrees physically with the book is that he keeps his hair very short. But the narrative does occasionally mention his thinning hair. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jun 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:oh, you know, somewhere between Steve Buscemi and Adrian Brody. Not someone tall and blonde.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Physically a less handsome Adrian Brody would be good I think. I always have had the sense that Maturin looks instantly foreign to the English characters in the book and Brody has that look much more than Bettany (who I didn't hate, by any means) Yeah, exactly. Bettany looks not just British, but English, and for that character that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
Can someone explain a bit what happens militarily to close out the Mauritius Command? Clonfert takes an outer battery then stages a battle inside a bay but fucks it up, yet it doesn't matter because overwhelming forces were weeks away anyways? I admit I don't understand that character. He was portrayed as a coward from Jack's early experience, and also a kind of dandy or foolish, but a crazy go getter, who ended up failing in a basic way, then couldn't stand the comparison to Aubrey? The whole denoument was a bit confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Mauritius Command is based very closely on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius_campaign_of_1809%E2%80%931811 . The relevant section is here, with "clonfert" copy pasted for "willoughby": quote:Willoughby appealed to Pym for assistance and Pym brought Sirius, Iphigenia and Magicienne to support Nereide, launching an assault on Grand Port on 23 August. Pym had failed to properly reconnoitre the channel and Duperré had had the warning buoys removed, so that Pym's squadron was blindly sailing into a complicated system of reefs and channels.[29] Sirius and Magicienne were soon irretrievably grounded while Iphigenia struggled to find a passage and was unable to close with the French squadron. Only Nereide reached Duperré's line and Willoughby's initial attack was so determined that the entire French squadron was rapidly driven ashore, only Bellone remaining in a position to exchange fire with the British frigate.[30] A fortunate shot from Bellone cut Nereide's anchor cable and the British frigate swung around, presenting her stern to the French ships which raked her repeatedly. Willoughby managed to mitigate some of the effects by cutting the other anchor cable, which brought some of his guns within range of the French, but the balance of the battle had shifted. Over the next few hours his frigate was battered from the French ships and from guns ashore until she was a dismasted, battered hulk with over 220 of her crew killed or wounded.[31] Basically, Clonfert/Willoughby was doing a good job, but Pym hosed it up, and it led to a massive defeat. Clonfert was capable but also kinda crazy and the shame of losing that badly and losing under Aubrey drives him to suicidal behavior (that part's O'Brian's fiction; willoughby didn't suicide historically). Then Aubrey/Rowling has a series of single ship victories and recaptures enough of a squadron to lead to victory, but before he can seal the deal, a massive armada shows up and takes the glory. In historicity, Rowling was granted a baronetcy for the victory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Can someone explain a bit what happens militarily to close out the Mauritius Command? Clonfert's one-sided relationship with Jack is one of my favorite parts of the entire series. Here comes Jack Aubrey, big, bluff, bold, the very model of an enterprising British naval hero, and moreover, Jack embodies that model unconsciously and naturally -- this is what he IS. And Clonfert desperately wants to see himself as an enterprising British naval hero, but he's the very opposite -- anxious, vain, and insecure, trying so hard to act the part of the dashing young captain and KNOWING he's acting a part, so that his officers and crew get in the habit of showering him with praise to help keep the act together. Being in such close proximity to Jack can't help but ruin the fantasy that he's built up for himself though, even though Jack is perfectly cordial and has no idea of any sort of competition between them. We learn through Stephen's conversations with Clonfert's doctor that Clonfert is probably suffering from an ulcer, one that gets worse every time Jack does something dashing and bold and reminds Clonfert that he's only an imitation, a pretender. I'm not sure whether or not he was indeed a coward, but I think he was conscious that Jack might think him so, which led to him acting even more rash while in battle. He was supposed to hold that bit of the island and, while he was acting like a bit of an idiot on the island, it was a different captain who had ultimate command and made some stupid mistakes that lost them the battle and the ships stationed there. Even so, it ruined Clonfert. He failed, lost his ship, was gravely injured (losing the good looks that made him popular with the ladies,) and again, here comes this big, bluff, bold naval hero -- everything that Clonfert wanted so much to be -- who is going to tell him how he cleaned up Clonfert's failures and unconsciously impress upon him again how Clonfert could never be the dashing captain that Jack effortlessly embodied. I love Maturin's inward reflection at the end. From memory: "You cannot blame the bull because the bullfrog burst, the bull has no notion of the affair."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mtsw/status/1409678888758779904 Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
The Mauritius Command was written before ulcers were understood to be caused by a bacterial infection, but it's kind of a perfect metaphor. Jack's actions can't be causing Clonfert's distress because the real problem is a process purely internal to Clonfert.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 06:34
|
|
|
At the end of the day we're still following the adventures of people fighting on behalf of monarchy, aristocracy, feudalism, and a bunch of other awful stuff. It's reactionary in the sense of being counter-revolutionary. Especially during the first decade or so of the Revolutionary wars - when Bourbon restoration in France was one of Britain's terms for peace - I think it's fair to see France as fighting a defensive war. So on one side you have the forces of monarchy aristocracy, feudalism, etc. and on the other you have expanded political franchise, some degree of meritocracy, an end to feudalism, and for a very brief spell even an abolition of slavery in France's colonies. It's not hard to see that one side is fighting for a better social order than the other. Obviously this is complicated once Napoleon consolidates power because he does awful reactionary stuff like try to suppress the revolution in Saint-Domingue. But even so our boys are on the more conservative side of the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:At the end of the day we're still following the adventures of people fighting on behalf of monarchy, aristocracy, feudalism, and a bunch of other awful stuff. It's reactionary in the sense of being counter-revolutionary. Especially during the first decade or so of the Revolutionary wars - when Bourbon restoration in France was one of Britain's terms for peace - I think it's fair to see France as fighting a defensive war. So on one side you have the forces of monarchy aristocracy, feudalism, etc. and on the other you have expanded political franchise, some degree of meritocracy, an end to feudalism, and for a very brief spell even an abolition of slavery in France's colonies. It's not hard to see that one side is fighting for a better social order than the other. Obviously this is complicated once Napoleon consolidates power because he does awful reactionary stuff like try to suppress the revolution in Saint-Domingue. But even so our boys are on the more conservative side of the conflict. Yeah, and of course it plays into the "reject modernity, embrace tradition" lost-cause horseshit by mostly emphasizing the struggles of the wealthy elite rather than how lovely it was to be a farmer (which the novels do much better, especially around the debates around slavery and the discussion of enclosures later in the series), and at the end of the day the heros are fighting for Empire. That said, I personally wouldn't call it right wing art - I don't think it deliberately plays up those themes or even centers them in any meaningful way. Instead I'd call it "art that right-wingers would like" which is different. Like, a lot of right wingers probably really like Starship Troopers but you can't possibly call that right wing art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:That said, I personally wouldn't call it right wing art - I don't think it deliberately plays up those themes or even centers them in any meaningful way. Instead I'd call it "art that right-wingers would like" which is different. Like, a lot of right wingers probably really like Starship Troopers but you can't possibly call that right wing art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Uh. Did someone stumble into an interpretation where Starship Troopers isn't fascist? Starship Troopers is satire. edit: The movie. The book is actually pro-fascist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:At the end of the day we're still following the adventures of people fighting on behalf of monarchy, aristocracy, feudalism, and a bunch of other awful stuff. It's reactionary in the sense of being counter-revolutionary. Especially during the first decade or so of the Revolutionary wars - when Bourbon restoration in France was one of Britain's terms for peace - I think it's fair to see France as fighting a defensive war. So on one side you have the forces of monarchy aristocracy, feudalism, etc. and on the other you have expanded political franchise, some degree of meritocracy, an end to feudalism, and for a very brief spell even an abolition of slavery in France's colonies. It's not hard to see that one side is fighting for a better social order than the other. Obviously this is complicated once Napoleon consolidates power because he does awful reactionary stuff like try to suppress the revolution in Saint-Domingue. But even so our boys are on the more conservative side of the conflict. It would probably be more accurate to describe these books as Liberal. Maturin has leftist pretensions but ultimately he's only progressive within the established pre-existing order. The characters are progressive for their time but even then only within the already established legal order -- e.g., they're anti-slavery but the books are set after slavery had been abolished in Britain so they're still enforcing the existing order, etc. The ultimate enemy, Napoleon, is represented as left-wing progressivism run amok. The argument I'd have to think about more is that the books are more representative of realpolitik than of any specific right or left wing ideology; Aubrey and Stephen do what's in their personal best interest and the interest of Britain, whether it's establishing a colonial relationship (Moahu) or destabilizing one (Chile).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:The book is actually pro-fascist. no, but it's a widespread belief
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Uh. Did someone stumble into an interpretation where Starship Troopers isn't fascist? Oh, whoops - I was thinking of the movie since we were talking about the M&C movie. The Starship Troopers movie is a satire of fascist propaganda and a critique of fascism, but there are plenty of chuds who miss that and end up agreeing with it. I'm less certain about the book, but inclined to think that Heinlein meant the fascist elements sincerely since through a lot of his books he tends to have characters spout off on political theory in ways that are clearly him just soapboxing and I don't see any reason to think that the characters doing that in the book are any less mouthpieces for him. I'd personally be comfortable calling the book right wing art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:no, but it's a widespread belief I'm not inclined to give Heinlein: a rabid anti-communist, proponent of nuclear testing, and pro-war partisan the benefit of the doubt, but you do you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Maturin is the only main character who has reflected much about politics and he's barely present in the film so discussing the books isn't useful. The film is more about 19th century Dudes Rocking than any particular political perspective. The conflict is remote enough in history that most people probably don't have an opinion on Napoleon or his politics. It doesn't shy away from presenting the poor living conditions in the royal navy although it does downplay the brutal discipline. I don't know I don't really see it as advocating a lifestyle or a political persuasion. Contrast with 300 where the message is definitely that excellence in violence gives you the moral authority to do whatever you want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:I'm not inclined to give Heinlein: a rabid anti-communist, proponent of nuclear testing, and pro-war partisan the benefit of the doubt, but you do you. starship troopers isn't a good book, and heinlein wasn't a good person, but that still doesn't make the book or the author fascist, "but you do you"
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Thank you Heinlein Defender, for correcting everyone else’s interpretation of a book
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Thank you Heinlein Defender, for correcting everyone else’s interpretation of a book perhaps you should learn to read
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Here is a pro-tip: no one needs you here to arbitrate opinions about lovely right-wing sci-fi authors. Some people look at Heinleins work and see a lot of fascist garbage. You don’t, whatever, fine, but that doesn’t make your opinion any more valid than anyone else’s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Here is a pro-tip: no one needs you here to arbitrate opinions about lovely right-wing sci-fi authors. do you often get this angry when people don't share your opinions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
imagine being the person who sees a post slandering Robert "Once Formed a Pro-Nuclear Testing Political Action Group" Heinlein and decides that is the hill they will die on, instead of doing literally anything else
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:perhaps you should learn to read
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
[mod hat on] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeqVGP-GPM&t=33s Everyone, please focus your posting on books or authors, not other posters. Posting about other posters is off topic for Book Barn. If your post contains the word "you" in it, consider posting it elsewhere, such as helldump. I know Helldump was deleted a decade ago. That's the point..
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It would probably be more accurate to describe these books as Liberal. Maturin has leftist pretensions but ultimately he's only progressive within the established pre-existing order. The characters are progressive for their time but even then only within the already established legal order -- e.g., they're anti-slavery but the books are set after slavery had been abolished in Britain so they're still enforcing the existing order, etc. The ultimate enemy, Napoleon, is represented as left-wing progressivism run amok. I can see how the books, on the surface, would be perfectly unobjectionable to any right-wing ideologue - the main characters are mostly men, the women in them are largely objects of their desire one way or another, all the major characters are white and upper-class and the privileges that gives them aren't ever challenged. But I would also say that's a product of the time and place O'Brian set his historical fiction. I'm not sure you can class the British fighting against the French in the Napoleonic Wars as a left/right power struggle, after the initial period immediately after the French Revolution, say 1789-1792. Napoleon may have been progressive in some ways, compared to the preceding ancien regime, but he was still a tyrant running an economy on plunder and a state on imperialist conquest. I would agree with you and just say that the characters exist in the world of that time. Although Stephen refers to political convictions sometimes and Aubrey is affected by parliamentary politics, these are mostly background to their personal affairs. The only bit of British politics I remember being emphasised is enclosures, and there O'Brian seems quite aware of the destructive nature of Britain's low-suffrage democracy / oligarchy. One thing which I want to point out about the books wrt modern culture wars: Almost all the characters are white and I guess you could say those who aren't are sometimes seen as exotic or given stereotypical roles? But I think that's being oversensitive, you can hardly expect larger roles in Aubrey/Maturin's social & professional world to be non-white, unless it's the focus of the plot. What I picked up on is that O'Brian sort of pokes fun at bigoted views quite frequently. Mrs Broad is horrified by Maturin's Malay servant Ahmed, with his black teeth 'like a native' but he turns out to be very nice and is contrasted with the rowdy, drunken Killick. Mrs Williams is once again shown as a stupid villain for her nasty racism towards Stephen's adopted South Pacific girls. I love the bit where a lone black man, assumed to be a slave, is released from a prize, and (paraphrasing here) Killick says to him "you free man now. Free man. Huzzay", 'making the motion of one released from chains'. "Pardon me, sir, said the black man, "my name is Smith". I think the author sees the absurdity of racism - also used a lot when people react to Maturin's Irishness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Of course Patrick O'Brian was Irish himself. Although not as Irish as he liked to represent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:What I picked up on is that O'Brian sort of pokes fun at bigoted views quite frequently. Mrs Broad is horrified by Maturin's Malay servant Ahmed, with his black teeth 'like a native' but he turns out to be very nice and is contrasted with the rowdy, drunken Killick. Mrs Williams is once again shown as a stupid villain for her nasty racism towards Stephen's adopted South Pacific girls. I love the bit where a lone black man, assumed to be a slave, is released from a prize, and (paraphrasing here) Killick says to him "you free man now. Free man. Huzzay", 'making the motion of one released from chains'. "Pardon me, sir, said the black man, "my name is Smith". I think the author sees the absurdity of racism - also used a lot when people react to Maturin's Irishness. See also the bit where sailors are talking to a Muslim and call him a "hairy hape" because he can't understand them, only to discover that he speaks perfect English and was just too shy to say so. IIRC his response is "A hape! You can put that where the monkey put the nut" which is a great line. More broadly, I'd disagree that Stephen and Jack are status quo liberals - Jack is, definitely, IMO a theme of his character is his unthinking acceptance that anything the British do must be good. But Stephen was literally part of an armed rebellion based on radical principals, and while O'Brian kind of had to torture his ideology to come up with a reason for him to work for the British government he keeps the same understanding of liberty as one of his core driving motives. I think he's exceptionally critical of the standing order, and he muses a couple of times that he would probably be working for Catalonian or Irish independence if he didn't see Napoleon as a bigger threat. He's fairly radical by the standards of the time. Admittedly, Stephen does repeatedly criticize or otherwise cut down Rousseauian radicals, but I think that's closer to leftist infighting than liberal critique, but my thinking on that is colored by the fact that I tend to agree with his critiques.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:See also the bit where sailors are talking to a Muslim and call him a "hairy hape" because he can't understand them, only to discover that he speaks perfect English and was just too shy to say so. IIRC his response is "A hape! You can put that where the monkey put the nut" which is a great line. I see what you mean about Stephen, but counterpoint, his radical days are behind him before the stories begin. He actually does spend the books working for the British crown against Napoleon. Aside from anti-slavery, I can't see many points where his political ideals drive the plot or any central conflicts. I think that's a strength of the books as historical fiction. They're not polemics, they're the stories of these two mens' lives. How many of us, aside from professional politicians or activists, spend time actively pursuing political goals, instead of just holding convictions and letting them inform our actions occasionally?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:See also the bit where sailors are talking to a Muslim and call him a "hairy hape" because he can't understand them, only to discover that he speaks perfect English and was just too shy to say so. IIRC his response is "A hape! You can put that where the monkey put the nut" which is a great line. I'd argue Jack is a pretty classic conservative, not in the sense of modern American politics but in the philosophical sense. He wears his hat sideways rather than fore and aft; he keeps his hair clubbed rather than cut short; he prefers the slow match to the new flintlock; he prefers to preserve the common rather than enclose it; he's just generally the sort who likes things to stay as they were. He's initially roughly in favor of slavery but mostly just through inertia and once he sees the horror of it personally he changes, at some cost to his own purse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd argue Jack is a pretty classic conservative, not in the sense of modern American politics but in the philosophical sense. He wears his hat sideways rather than fore and aft; he keeps his hair clubbed rather than cut short; he prefers the slow match to the new flintlock; he prefers to preserve the common rather than enclose it; he's just generally the sort who likes things to stay as they were. He's initially roughly in favor of slavery but mostly just through inertia and once he sees the horror of it personally he changes, at some cost to his own purse. Also aesthetically he's dismayed at his father's renovation of their 17th century estate house and at the prospect of machines on board Royal Navy ships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
He's also very grudgingly impressed by the efficiency of the (iirc) Lively but remains dubious of the idea of letting common sailors perform actions based on their own understanding of what the proper action should be, calling it the epitome of Whiggishness and basically thinking that even though it's demonstrably the best crew he has ever seen, it's still wrong. Calling him a conservative seems pretty spot on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 01:55
|
|
