# Master and Commander by Patrick O'Brian



## Vertigo (May 20, 2016)

Note that if you have previously read any of C S Forester’s Hornblower books, as have I, it’s almost impossible to discuss this book without making comparisons with Hornblower and I will be doing so here.

Do not be deceived by the title of this book; other than the main characters it bears little or no resemblance to the famous film of the same name. The book charts the initial meeting of Aubrey and Maturin and their first cruises together, whereas in the film they have already known each other for some time. All the action in the book takes place in the Mediterranean whilst all the action in the film takes place around South America. There is just one short scene from the book which has been used in the film – the raft pretending to be a ship at night – and nothing else. So if you’ve seen it do not expect this to be the book of the film; it’s not!

Jack Aubrey gets his first command, meets physician Stephen Maturin and together they embark on a series of actions around the Mediterranean. That is the essence of this book it is very episodic with little or no real plotting. Stephen Maturin, having no naval knowledge whatsoever provides O’Brian with the opportunity to do some seriously big info dumps on the parts and workings of a man-of-war during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Whilst some might find these too detailed, I very much enjoyed then, but then I have also bought (and highly recommend) the companion book – Patrick O’Brian’s Navy by Richard O’Neill. I would say O’Brian’s use of nautical jargon is significantly more in depth than Forester’s and I can well imagine many finding it just a little too much especially when combined with the narrative language used throughout which is very much in the vernacular of the time (though much watered down I’m sure). Again, for better or worse, O’Brian does this far more than Forester.

I have seen O’Brian’s character drawing described in glowing terms but I’m afraid I found him sorely lacking in this area. Only the Aubrey and Maturin characters are drawn in any great depth, and of them I’d only say that Maturin was really successful. Aubrey came across to me as shallow and boorish and I struggled to sympathise with him; for me it was Maturin that carried the book. I will be continuing with the series and I am trusting that Aubrey will be better developed later.

One way that Master and Commander did overshadow Hornblower was the way in which it gave a much more intimate feel for the lives of the junior officers and the lower decks. Forester tended to keep his narrative very closely tied to his central character Hornblower, whereas O’Brian’s is more open, allowing the POV to occasionally move further away from the central characters and spends more time on the day to day life aboard ship.

The action sequences are described vividly and with great pace and here the book excels but outside of those scenes the pace is often, sadly, very slow. The sense of time and place is always strong and again here O’Brian excels with many little details, such as details of the period medicine, along with the previously mentioned vernacular giving colour and a strong feeling of authenticity to the book.

Overall I enjoyed the book but I had expected/hoped for a little better.


3/5 stars.


----------



## The Judge (May 20, 2016)

Good review.  I thoroughly enjoyed the novel and would give it a higher rating than you've done, but that's perhaps because I read it as historical fiction, not as an adventure story (which is what the Hornblowers are to my mind) and I didn't mind the less frenetic pace -- there was enough action and plot for me, though I agree that his books tend towards the thoughtful/slower and episodic.


Just one point, although you're right to warn people who may have seen the film and not read the book, the novel was of course written long before the film was thought of, so rather than say it's not a book of the film, it's truer to say the film is most definitely not of the book -- from memory, I think the film actually pinches stuff from a good number of the novels.  I was disappointed by the film, though, and thought the novel infinitely superior, though I can understand why the changes were made to interest the younger male audience who would need the action quotient to be raised.  (And why the baddie in the film was made French, and not American as was the case in the novel!!)


----------



## Vertigo (May 20, 2016)

You are of course absolutely correct, but I made the point that way around as most coming to the first book today will probably have seen the film first. And yes my understanding is that the film incorporated bits from several novels. It will be interesting to spot them as I work through them.

It was very much the historical aspects that held my attention. When I come to history I'm far more interested in how the common man lived in the historical societies/cultures than in the generally much better documented lives of the Lord's and Ladies and I thought this book did that brilliantly for the age of sail. As a novel, though, I did find it lacking; I could get at least partly into Maturin's head but I struggled to get into Aubrey's and frankly didn't much like him. I almost felt that O'Brian didn't want his readers to like him. That said I also found Hornblower a deeply unsympathetic character for at least the first four books but still kept reading!

To be fair it's also more of a three and a half stars. And I'm trying to be more precise with my ratings these days so that 3 stars actually means a really good book. It's only one or two stars that mean a bad book for me.

My ratings now go something like:
1. Dreadful I'll probably never pick up anything by that author again
2. Bad but had some redeeming features and I might try something by that author again
3. Good and I'll almost certainly read more from that author
4. Very good and I'm off to add more books from that author to my wish list
5. Excellent, worth re-reading and I can't wait to get something more by that author.


----------



## MWagner (May 20, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> Aubrey came across to me as shallow and boorish and I struggled to sympathise with him; for me it was Maturin that carried the book. I will be continuing with the series and I am trusting that Aubrey will be better developed later.



Jack Aubrey is meant to be of a type, almost an ideal of the Royal Navy captain. So when he's at sea he's remarkably resourceful, brave, and cunning. However, on land he's out of his element, and makes many foolish choices, usually involving women and money. As the series develops, it's the contrast between these two Aubreys - the heroic and supremely competent man of sea and the foolish and ill-fated man ashore - that defines his character. He does have a good heart, and is a fiercely loyal friend and officer, which makes him sympathetic in my eyes.

The books are also built on the contrast between Aubrey and Maturin, the one a lusty and convivial man of huge appetites, the other an eccentric and socially-awkward academic. They share a love of music (a realm where heart and head meet), and gradually forge an unbreakable friendship. It's interesting how they appeal to different readers. It's thought that Gene Rodenberry modelled Kirk and Spock off the pair (as well as the notion that the ship's doctor is the close friend and confidant of a captain otherwise isolated by his duty).



Vertigo said:


> The action sequences are described vividly and with great pace and here the book excels but outside of those scenes the pace is often, sadly, very slow. The sense of time and place is always strong and again here O’Brian excels with many little details, such as details of the period medicine, along with the previously mentioned vernacular giving colour and a strong feeling of authenticity to the book.



I agree with the Judge that it helps if you regard O'Brian's books as historical fiction, rather than adventure stories. O'Brian strives for fidelity to the conditions and circumstances of naval life. Sailors endure long periods of suspense that end in nothing, and then confront sudden and unexpected catastrophes. The novels rarely follow a conventional narrative arc, because that would impose an unlikely structure on the conflicts O'Brian captures. Capricious fate and disappointment are as likely as dramatic pay-off. Still, that uncertainty has its own kind of appeal, and I find the narrative and emotional payoffs engaging enough that I've read ten of the books so far, and allot myself one each year because I don't want the series to end.


----------



## Vertigo (May 20, 2016)

MWagner said:


> Jack Aubrey is meant to be of a type, almost an ideal of the Royal Navy captain. So when he's at sea he's remarkably resourceful, brave, and cunning. However, on land he's out of his element, and makes many foolish choices, usually involving women and money. As the series develops, it's the contrast between these two Aubreys - the heroic and supremely competent man of sea and the foolish and ill-fated man ashore - that defines his character. He does have a good heart, and is a fiercely loyal friend and officer, which makes him sympathetic in my eyes.
> 
> The books are also built on the contrast between Aubrey and Maturin, the one a lusty and convivial man of huge appetites, the other an eccentric and socially-awkward academic. They share a love of music (a realm where heart and head meet), and gradually forge an unbreakable friendship. It's interesting how they appeal to different readers. It's thought that Gene Rodenberry modelled Kirk and Spock off the pair (as well as the notion that the ship's doctor is the close friend and confidant of a captain otherwise isolated by his duty).
> 
> ...


The brutal reality is that today, with our modern sensibilities, we would probably find most 'gentlemen' of that period deeply unsympathetic. But there is something about how Aubrey comes across in the book that I struggled with. Yes, he certainly had some fine qualities as you have listed but also I found him deeply egocentric both at sea and ashore. He never really considers the impact of his actions on anyone but himself. And that gave me some difficulty.


----------



## The Judge (May 20, 2016)

MWagner said:


> It's thought that Gene Rodenberry modelled Kirk and Spock off the pair (as well as the notion that the ship's doctor is the close friend and confidant of a captain otherwise isolated by his duty).


I'd not heard that idea before, though it's an intriguing one, but wasn't Star Trek TOS aired on TV a few years before Master and Commander was first published?


----------



## MWagner (May 20, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> The brutal reality is that today, with our modern sensibilities, we would probably find most 'gentlemen' of that period deeply unsympathetic. But there is something about how Aubrey comes across in the book that I struggled with. Yes, he certainly had some fine qualities as you have listed but also I found him deeply egocentric both at sea and ashore. He never really considers the impact of his actions on anyone but himself. And that gave me some difficulty.



Agreed that realistic portrayals of people in the early 19th century can be tough to make sympathetic. Captains in the royal navy at the time were absolute despots over their crew (something that O'Brian comments on through the voice of Maturin, who finds navy discipline inhumane). O'Brian also makes it clear that Aubrey is an unusually mild captain, and one that crew members would think themselves fortunate to serve under. Still, he is a headstrong man who lets himself be led by his appetites whenever he's not engaged in the serious business of commanding a ship of the line.



The Judge said:


> I'd not heard that idea before, though it's an intriguing one, but wasn't Star Trek TOS aired on TV a few years before Master and Commander was first published?



So it did! Must have just been a coincidence. Regardless, the success of both series show how powerful an archetype it is: the emotional and charismatic leader paired with the rational and restrained companion.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (May 20, 2016)

MWagner said:


> ((Speaking of the suggestion that Rodenberry modeled Kirk and Spock from the Aubrey-Maturin duo, and pointing out that STAR TREK aired before MASTER AND COMMANDER was first published)
> 
> So it did! Must have just been a coincidence. Regardless, the success of both series show how powerful an archetype it is: the emotional and charismatic leader paired with the rational and restrained companion.



Yes, it's an archetype of sorts...literature generally needs a way to expose the interior workings of main characters, and resort to a friend or companion to facilitate that is far from uncommon -- Batman and Robin don't do it well, though. Neither did the Lone Ranger and Tonto. But maybe we want to go all the way back to Don Quixote?


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 21, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> Only the Aubrey and Maturin characters are drawn in any great depth, and of them I’d only say that Maturin was really successful. Aubrey came across to me as shallow and boorish and I struggled to sympathise with him; for me it was Maturin that carried the book.


People who knew O’Brian say Maturin was an obvious self-portrait.  The fact that O’Brian was in intelligence at one time supports that claim. So that's probably why. With Aubrey he was probably trying to avoid the superman syndrome, but I agree that, for me at least, he overdid it a little in making him a wee bit buffoonish. Still, I love the whole series.

On the whole I'm not sure but what I didn't like his "The Golden Ocean" even better. I've seen it refered to as a YA book, but I liked it. Guess I have Peter Pan syndrome. Maybe I can collect disability for it.



MWagner said:


> So it did! Must have just been a coincidence.


Neither coincidence, archetype, nor clairvoyance. Your informant just got it half-right. Hornblower, not Aubrey, was the explicitly acknowledged model for Kirk. The rest is just detail grown like barnacles on a half remembered idea afloat in someone's imagination.


----------



## Bugg (May 21, 2016)

The Judge said:


> Just one point, although you're right to warn people who may have seen the film and not read the book, the novel was of course written long before the film was thought of, so rather than say it's not a book of the film, it's truer to say the film is most definitely not of the book -- from memory, I think the film actually pinches stuff from a good number of the novels.  I was disappointed by the film, though, and thought the novel infinitely superior, though I can understand why the changes were made to interest the younger male audience who would need the action quotient to be raised.  (And why the baddie in the film was made French, and not American as was the case in the novel!!)



Since reading the books I've wished that they had based the film on *Desolation Island* - maybe just because it's my favourite book of the series, but also because it would have allowed Weir to show some of the other side of Maturin's character (which I won't go into detail about), it would have started by showing some of Jack's home life, and it's got that terrifying, magnificent chase sequence.

Re *Master and Commander*, Vertigo, I think I said to you in another thread that I wasn't so keen on this one when I first read it, so I can understand your thoughts entirely.  The Hornblower comparisons are unavoidable, but to my mind they come at the same subject matter from completely different directions (Hornblower being more action/adventure where this is a recreation of a period that immerses you in time and place completely).  Stick with it!  I enjoyed *Post Captain* when, after the first, I wasn't really expecting to, and then from *HMS Surprise* on the series really starts to hit its stride.


----------



## Vertigo (May 22, 2016)

Bugg said:


> Since reading the books I've wished that they had based the film on *Desolation Island* - maybe just because it's my favourite book of the series, but also because it would have allowed Weir to show some of the other side of Maturin's character (which I won't go into detail about), it would have started by showing some of Jack's home life, and it's got that terrifying, magnificent chase sequence.
> 
> Re *Master and Commander*, Vertigo, I think I said to you in another thread that I wasn't so keen on this one when I first read it, so I can understand your thoughts entirely.  The Hornblower comparisons are unavoidable, but to my mind they come at the same subject matter from completely different directions (Hornblower being more action/adventure where this is a recreation of a period that immerses you in time and place completely).  Stick with it!  I enjoyed *Post Captain* when, after the first, I wasn't really expecting to, and then from *HMS Surprise* on the series really starts to hit its stride.


Yes I've heard that said elsewhere as well. Also I think O'Brian captured the historical sense of time and place better than Forester and I particularly enjoyed that. I'll certainly be moving forward to the next one in the series; as I said above 3 stars is still a good book for me and I'll only drop an author if I just get a string of 3s and nothing better. So, he's still got plenty of time to redeem himself 

I also only recently found out that Frederick Marryat actually served under Thomas Cochrane, who I believe was the main inspiration for Aubrey. So I shall have to read his Midshipman Easy sometime as well; you can't really get closer to the horse's mouth than that for this particular type of book (other than actually reading the Navy Gazettes of the time).


----------



## 2DaveWixon (May 22, 2016)

Bugg said:


> Since reading the books I've wished that they had based the film on *Desolation Island* - maybe just because it's my favourite book of the series, but also because it would have allowed Weir to show some of the other side of Maturin's character (which I won't go into detail about), it would have started by showing some of Jack's home life, and it's got that terrifying, magnificent chase sequence.
> 
> Re *Master and Commander*, Vertigo, I think I said to you in another thread that I wasn't so keen on this one when I first read it, so I can understand your thoughts entirely.  The Hornblower comparisons are unavoidable, but to my mind they come at the same subject matter from completely different directions (Hornblower being more action/adventure where this is a recreation of a period that immerses you in time and place completely).  Stick with it!  I enjoyed *Post Captain* when, after the first, I wasn't really expecting to, and then from *HMS Surprise* on the series really starts to hit its stride.



*HMS Surprise* is my own particular favorite on that series. (But then, it's been years since I read any of them; maybe my views would change if I ever had time to go back at them...)
Dave


----------



## aThenian (May 22, 2016)

Excellent review.



Vertigo said:


> it is very episodic with little or no real plotting.



Yes, that's the biggest weakness for me.  It doesn't really go anywhere - just stops. 



Vertigo said:


> The action sequences are described vividly and with great pace and here the book excels



For me that was the biggest strength.

Other than that - the historical setting is impressive but I think overdone.  I'm a huge Jane Austen fan, and I think if, writing at the actual time, she didn't feel the need to lavish her work with endless details about clothes, costume, technology etc etc , then why does O'Brien need to - other than to show off?

I am going to keep reading though - after reading this thread - having initially stuck halfway through _Post Captain_.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 22, 2016)

aThenian said:


> she didn't feel the need to lavish her work with endless details about clothes, costume, technology etc etc


In fact she ignores steam power, industrialisation and almost the war with France etc. She focuses sharply on the immediate story, *because it's contemporary*. Not a historical novel*.  Just like it would be a little weird if a police detective story or romance set in Liverpool or Yorkshire dales had a lot of stuff about North Korea, Putin, Trump, Genetic Engineering, the folding Samsung phone etc.

I did quite like the 1st Book and found it better than the Film, though lacking in Plot. Then the Chalet School Books and some others I like don't have much more plot. I am finding the second one tedious. maybe it will pick up.

I think a good clear review. I wish I could be as clear.

[* It's a very clever trick indeed to write a novel, not as a historical novel, but as if a person then wrote it as a contemporary work as well as have it as a good novel for a modern reader. How many people want to read a novel exactly like a contemporary Victorian novel by a Victorian that's not attempting to replicate more famous characters?]


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 22, 2016)

aThenian said:


> Jane Austen . . . writing at the actual time, she didn't feel the need to lavish her work with endless details about clothes, costume, technology etc etc , then why does O'Brien need to - other than to show off?.


Because she wasn't writing historical novels, historic maybe, but not historical.

Rarely, I do see novels that were written with the TECHNIQUE of historical novels despite a setting that was contemporaneous with the writing of it. The most remarkabe that come to mind are Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novels, all of which can be precisely dated as to setting by internal clues, and all of which were written at about the same time as they were set. I say "about", because despite being a fast writer (not Asimov fast, but still fast) the writing still took considerably longer than the amount of time covered by the story, which often covered less than a month. To a modern reader, they READ like historical novels because of all the period detail. I often wonder if they didn't seem awfully busy to people who read them when they came out. But it is definitely part of their charm now.
=====================================
Whoops. I see Ray already covered that ground. Sorry.


----------



## Bugg (May 23, 2016)

I wrote some reviews of the whole series here, if anyone's remotely interested.  Obviously, each review may contain spoilers for previous books in the series, and some are more detailed than others, so handle with care etc etc


----------



## Vertigo (May 23, 2016)

Bugg said:


> I wrote some reviews of the whole series here, if anyone's remotely interested.  Obviously, each review may contain spoilers for previous books in the series, and some are more detailed than others, so handle with care etc etc


Interesting @Bugg so I should be prepared to find the start of the second book a bit slow initially.

What's also interesting is that you've now reminded me that I meant to mention the companion book which I bought and which I thought had been recommended by your good self... but the one you mention there is different to the one I have bought; Patrick O'Brian's Navy - the illustrated companion to Jack Aubrey's World. I think this was a more recent book and I notice that one of the contributors is the same guy as the author of the guide you bought - David Miller - and looking at the Amazon preview it seems to share an awful lot of stuff with that book. Anyway it's a brilliant introduction to the world of the day; not just the ships but also the wars and life in England of the day as well as life at sea. I shall probably review that when I have finished it.


----------



## Bugg (May 23, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> Interesting @Bugg so I should be prepared to find the start of the second book a bit slow initially.
> 
> What's also interesting is that you've now reminded me that I meant to mention the companion book which I bought and which I thought had been recommended by your good self... but the one you mention there is different to the one I have bought; Patrick O'Brian's Navy - the illustrated companion to Jack Aubrey's World. I think this was a more recent book and I notice that one of the contributors is the same guy as the author of the guide you bought - David Miller - and looking at the Amazon preview it seems to share an awful lot of stuff with that book. Anyway it's a brilliant introduction to the world of the day; not just the ships but also the wars and life in England of the day as well as life at sea. I shall probably review that when I have finished it.



Good choice!  I possibly did recommend it another time, as I received it as a gift last year - it's very good, much better than the one I bought myself, the one mentioned in my first review 

Whilst I'm at it, I also thoroughly enjoyed Stephen Taylor's *Commander: The Life and Exploits of Britain's Greatest Frigate Captain*.  I've also got his *Storm and Conquest: The Battle for the Indian Ocean, 1808-10* to read.


----------



## aThenian (May 23, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> She focuses sharply on the immediate story, *because it's contemporary*. Not a historical novel*.





Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> Because she wasn't writing historical novels



Though I think its more that Austen wasn't an author who was very interested in detail - she virtually never describes a meal, or an outfit, for example.  Plenty of writers using contemporary settings include more detail than Austen ever does.  It's a matter of taste.

The same with historical novels - I think there are readers of historical novels who absolutely love detail at the O'Brien level, but I don't agree that historical novels _have_ to have it.  In some ways it makes for a harder read.  The language is so deliberately "of the time" that it feels a bit over the top (and certainly rather complex).  Here's a random page of Master and Commander - p 38 - there's  "never strain at gnats of that kind" and "knocked about an apothecary's shop" and "lob lolly boy" "beast leech" and "cunning man".  Whereas Austen is a lot plainer.  Again I think it's a matter of taste as a reader whether that kind of language draws you into the period or creates a barrier. (I think @Lew Rockwell Fan 's "busy" description is a good one.)

By the way, don't know if anyone's read Dorothy Dunnett's *Lymond* books?  I've read the first, which has got a similarly well-researched richly detailed feel  (again, maybe a little too much for me, but her fans love it) and they are not naval but they are strong on adventure, set in the English/Scottish wars in the Tudor period.  And very, very cleverly plotted.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 23, 2016)

I recommend Cooper Fenimore's "The Pilot" as naval adventure story. it's on Gutenberg. He served as a midshipman in US Navy.


----------



## Bugg (May 24, 2016)

aThenian said:


> I think there are readers of historical novels who absolutely love detail at the O'Brien level, but I don't agree that historical novels _have_ to have it. In some ways it makes for a harder read.



There's more than enough room for different styles, for sure.  I'll quite happily read more straightforward authors, like Forester or Cornwell, as well as the likes of O'Brian or Mantel.  For my tastes, I found O'Brian became easier to read the further I got in the series.  I definitely struggled with it for the first couple of books, but I have to say I found it increasingly involving, to the point where I was so immersed in each book that by the time I reached the end I didn't want to surface and found it difficult to get back into anything else.  It was hard not to say 'There is not a moment to be lost!' for most of last year  

Personally, I don't think his level of detail was ever over-the-top, though.  For that, I'd turn to the likes of Christian Cameron, whose obsession with military detail I find to be quite a grind.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 25, 2016)

I suspect some of the people interested in this thread might enjoy this:





======================
Well, that doesn't work for me. Let's try it this way:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0CvSIhF_tA

I didn' t see the movie, but if they make a sequel, I think it would make a rather cool scene to put an appropriately disabled artist in the right setting to perform this. A crippled vet in a sailor's bar. It would be nigh impossible to find someone to equal Roger's delivery, but even so, it would be cool.


----------

