O'Brian versus Hornblower?

[soulsinging]

To an American, these series can at first seem a little indistinguishable. However, I've got a book shop gift card and have been enjoying Shogun so a little more adventure on the high seas seemed appropriate. Anyone have strong feelings one way or the other about which is the better series?

Or should I be reading Bernard Cornwell since I'm a Yank?

 

[Zoe Mackay]

It depends what you want in your series. There's a certain amount of derring-do in both series. The Aubrey-Maturin series is a little more densely written, a little more questioning of its characters' morality. Hornblower is more straight-up adventure, written very accessibly.

I marginally prefer the Hornblowers, but I like both. (I also like Alexander Kent's Bolitho series a lot, which is more on the Hornblower end of the scale).

 

[The Judge]

I agree with Robert's assessment of them both, and they rather reflect the times in which they were written. Forester's first Hornblower was published in 1937, the last in 1967, and they're easy to read, full of action and male bravery, and not very complicated as far as characterisation is concerned -- the kind of thing you know young boys of the 1950s would have been reading. The O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series also spanned 30 years of publication, from 1969-99, and they are more complex -- there are two main characters for a start, both very different -- and although there is again plenty of action, there's a depth to the narrative, and the themes are more adult, more intelligent, the settings more realistic and palpable. I've not read all the Hornblowers so I can't comment on the female characters there -- though my money is on them being rather one-dimensional -- but the women in the O'Brian books are well-rounded characters who impact on the plots, as opposed to sitting there decoratively.

Overall, I prefer the Aubrey-Maturin books, and I think O'Brian is a better writer, though for my taste the quality of the novels fell off towards the end.

Another advantage of the O'Brian's is that they were published in chronological order, so it's easier to start at the beginning and work your way through.

 

[hitmouse]

Both series are very good, but o'brien has altogether more depth, complexity of character, historical sophistication. It also manages to be wryly humorous and thrilling. I always foumd Hornblower a bit more Boys Own. Maybe that is unfair: I loved the Hornblower books when I discovered them in my early teens. I dont think I would have seen the appeal of Aubrey-Maturin at that stage.

 

[Brian G Turner]

This thread has reminded me that I have Young Hornblower on my shelves, as yet unread. Probably recommended after reading another Hornblower thread here some time ago.

 

[Bick]

O'Brian is widely regarded as the better writer. I read the first 3 or 4 Aubrey/Maturin novels and can confirm they are excellent.

 

[Vince W]

I would get both and read Hornblower first and then Aubrey/Maturin. They are all time well spent!

 

[soulsinging]

I always foumd Hornblower a bit more Boys Own

What's boys own? Don't think I've heard that saying before, might be one of those British isms I need these novels to help me understand!

 

[Bick]

If you look up "Boy's Own Paper" on Wikipedia, all will become clear - sorry I can't easily provide the link on my phone.

 

[The Judge]

Here's the link The Boy's Own Paper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hadn't realised it ran for so long -- I thought it was a 1940s/50s thing.


And I've just about fallen off my chair laughing at the "We will bear the suggestion for an article on how to keep a girl friend in mind! In the meantime there is an article on keeping Golden Hamsters on pages 34 and 35 of this issue" That's the spirit that won us an Empire!

 

[soulsinging]

If you look up "Boy's Own Paper" on Wikipedia, all will become clear - sorry I can't easily provide the link on my phone.

Got it, thanks! That sounds rather up my alley.

 

[Bick]

The Judge - that quote is superb!

BTW, when I think 'Boy's Own' in a literary sense, rather than just the boy's paper, I tend to think "Biggles".

 

[vanye]

To me it is no contest between the two: Hornblower all the way. And I second the suggestion you look up Kent's Bolitho series, although I don't like it as much as I like Hornblower.

 

[Droflet]

Yep, I liked the others but Hornblower for me.

 

[Vertigo]

Can't really give an opinion just yet as I've got just one Hornblower book left to read before I start on the O'Brian books. I've loved the Hornblower books despite some annoying aspects; the writing does feel very much of its time. This is pretty much the same sort of criticism I level at much SF written in the same period; compared to more modern writing it all feels a bit shallow. And yes, @The Judge, the women throughout have always felt very peripheral and if not one-dimensional no better than two; very little depth.

 

[MWagner]

You can't go wrong with either, but count me as another who finds O'Brian's writing and characterization far more sophisticated. The Aubrey-Maturin books have almost spoiled adventure stories for me, as now I hold them all to the standards of prose, historical fidelity, psychological insight, maturity, and sparkling intelligence that O'Brian demonstrates in the series. And he sacrifices nothing in plotting and action. Why can't more authors demonstrate excellence in all aspects of fiction - how hard can it be?

 

[hitmouse]

You can't go wrong with either, but count me as another who finds O'Brian's writing and characterization far more sophisticated. The Aubrey-Maturin books have almost spoiled adventure stories for me, as now I hold them all to the standards of prose, historical fidelity, psychological insight, maturity, and sparkling intelligence that O'Brian demonstrates in the series. And he sacrifices nothing in plotting and action. Why can't more authors demonstrate excellence in all aspects of fiction - how hard can it be?

I suspect it is is very hard indeed.

 

[soulsinging]

Can't really give an opinion just yet as I've got just one Hornblower book left to read before I start on the O'Brian books. I've loved the Hornblower books despite some annoying aspects; the writing does feel very much of its time. This is pretty much the same sort of criticism I level at much SF written in the same period; compared to more modern writing it all feels a bit shallow. And yes, @The Judge, the women throughout have always felt very peripheral and if not one-dimensional no better than two; very little depth.

Did you read them in any particular order? I understand the order in which they were published isn't necessarily chronological story-wise. Personally, that doesn't bother me, as I prefer the idea of reading them in the same order original readers did.

 

[Vertigo]

Did you read them in any particular order? I understand the order in which they were published isn't necessarily chronological story-wise. Personally, that doesn't bother me, as I prefer the idea of reading them in the same order original readers did.

I did go for chronological order (except for my starter which was a charity shop acquisition and was somewhere around the middle). Not sure I'd recommend that order though. It took me a long while to appreciate that Hornblower wasn't just depressed and massively lacking in self confidence but something much more like what we now call bipolar. Maybe if I'd read in publication order that might have come across much quicker.

I do have a tendency to go for chronological when I can.

 

[aThenian]

I've read some of both series and I don't think either is anywhere near as good as Shogun. (Mind you, Shogun is top of most lists for me.) I've only read two O'Brians so far, and I've enjoyed them, but I'm still withholding judgement somewhat. There's a mass of historical detail, which I don't think is the same thing as historical depth, and the plots feel episodic. But I guess I'll be able to make a more in-depth judgement when I've read another 10 volumes or so...