The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to the historical fiction discussion of Master and Commander by Patrick O'Brian.

This is the reading assignment for week six - (June 7th, 2010 to June 13th, 2010)

Chapter Six - pages 201 - 222

This is the second historical fiction group selected book.

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers if you are catching up.

This book was kicked off on May 3rd.

This discussion is being led by assisting moderator of historical fiction - Elizabeth S.

We always enjoy the participation of all group members. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

This thread opens up Monday, June 7th for discussion. This is a non spoiler thread.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Patrick O'Brian

Chapter six is one of our shorter chapters. We begin with a look at life ashore. Stephen has a surgeon friend who lets him stay at his house. We get a good picture of Stephen's opinions on several subjects as we read some of Stephen's diary. Jack comes in to take Stephen to Mrs. Harte's party and we see he has a fear of snakes. At the party, Stephen is introduced to a number of Jack's friends, and Jack repeatedly tells the tale of Stephen doing brain surgery on the gunner. Stephen is pulled aside by a Captain Nevin, who is seeking free medical advice. The Mrs. Harte requests Stephen to take away the drunk Jack before he says something of lasting damage. Jack decides to set sail and pick up the missing water and stragglers later. Back at sea, we get a closer look at flogging, and Jack commits himself to working more closely with the midshipmen to help train them. Stephen is concerned about a man being ostracized by the crew.

One of the interesting bits to me in this chapter is the handling of drunkenness. It all depends on who and where, doesn't it. Jack being drunk at a party on shore just means someone has to drag him away before he does himself a disservice. The Sophies being drunk on board means a flogging.

Elizabeth S wrote: "One of the interesting bits to me in this chapter is the handling of drunkenness. It all depends on who and where, doesn't it. Jack being drunk at a party on shore just means someone has to drag ..."

If the crew reported back aboard drunk, then that was expected and not a matter of discipline. If they got drunk on board the ship, then that meant they had got liquor on board which was against the rules for the ordinary sea man and they would be punished. Officers bought their own supplies and if they wished to bring liquor on board then that was accepted part of naval life. (they would have been regarded as strange if they hadn't brought liquor as part of their supplies)

One of the things I love about these books is that, while depicting another "world" - one totally foreign to me - they also illustrate the universality of some human experiences. Stephen is frustrated because his respected colleague, Dillon, can't stand his colleague and friend, Jack. How many times does that happen to each of us in "real" life?!

One of the "strange" parts of this chapter is the treatment of the "Jonah" - the sailor ostracized by the rest of the crew to the point that he is neither eating nor sleeping. Sailors seem to be an extremely superstitious bunch, if O'Brian's portrait is accurate.

Mary Ellen wrote: "One of the things I love about these books is that, while depicting another "world" - one totally foreign to me - they also illustrate the universality of some human experiences. Stephen is frustr..."

I think they were very superstitious. I remember a story that the sailors thought Friday was a particularly bad day and to counter that the Royal Navy built a ship called Friday. They started in on a Friday launched in on a Friday and sent it to sea on a Friday. Only problem was it was never heard from again. (any truth??)

Ha! Good story, Patricrk!

I suppose sailors were prone to superstition because they are so vulnerable to misfortune from so many quarters, and had no place to turn when tragedy struck, by weather or attack. Superstition gives us an illusion of a measure of control over the unknown, over powerful forces. It gives us a reason for the misfortune suffered by others (they set sail on a Friday!) and, therefore, a comforting assurance that we will not suffer the same (we left port on a Tuesday!).

That is a great story, Patricrk. As you said, I wonder if there is any truth. But truth is often so strange, it very well may be!

I think another contribution to sailor superstition is the long hours spent with the same small group of people. The need to simply "explain" things seems to just grow.

Patricrk wrote: If the crew reported back aboard drunk, then that was expected and not a matter of discipline. If they got drunk on board the ship, then that meant they had got liquor on board which was against the rules for the ordinary sea man and they would be punished.

I think this also goes to a mindset. Officers are/were considered to be a special breed. Therefore, they are not prone to the temptations of alcohol and drunkenness. (even though we see a prime example of it in Jack while on-shore).

Enlisted men on the other hand, need to be lead because they are not capable of thinking for themselves and left to their own will collapse and wallow in debauchery.

I believe this overriding concept is still held in some nations military units today.

Some great posts here with some excellent observations. I'd like to mention one part of the book that I really enjoyed which was the bit about Molly Harte's party that Jack invited Stephen along to.

".... 'Allow me to name my friend - my particular friend - and surgeon, Dr Maturin,' said Jack, leading Stephen up to their hostess. 'Mrs Harte.'
'Your servant, ma'am,' said Stephen, making a leg.
'I am very happy to see you here sir,' said Mrs Harte, instantly prepared to dislike him very much indeed.
'Dr Maturin, Captain Harte,' went on Jack.
'Happy,' said Captain Harte, disliking him already, but for an entirely opposite reason, looking over Stephen's head and holding out two fingers, only a little way in front of his sagging belly. Stephen looked deliberately at them, left them dangling there and silently moved his head in a bow whose civil insolence so exactly matched his welcome that Molly Harte said to herself, 'I shall like that man.' They went on to leave room for others, for the tide was flowing fast - the sea-officers all appeared within seconds of the appointed time."

I could picture this scene so easily in my mind and had a good laugh to myself.

Elizabeth S wrote: "One of the interesting bits to me in this chapter is the handling of drunkenness. It all depends on who and where, doesn't it. Jack being drunk at a party on shore just means someone has to drag ..."

The men are also given an allotment of rum every day. This also complicates matters.

Also,if a sailor is drunk he may fall off a mast and kill himself. If an officer is drunk, what is the worst that could happen :).

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Some great posts here with some excellent observations. I'd like to mention one part of the book that I really enjoyed which was the bit about Molly Harte's party that Jack invited Stephen along to..."

That was a great exchange, Aussie Rick. I laughed out loud. O'Brian really has some interesting social commentary here.

I think my favorite exchange from this chapter is the whole snake bit. Jack is demanding Stephen find and wear silk stockings to Mrs. Harte's party, and while Stephen is digging for something appropriate, a snake comes out:

'You are always in such a hurry,' said Stephen peevishly, groping among his possessions. A Montpellier snake glided out with a dry rustling sound and traversed the room in a series of extraordinary elegant curves, its head held up some eighteen inches above the ground.
'Oh, oh, oh,' cried Jack, leaping on to a chair. 'A snake!'
'Will these do?' asked Stephen. 'They have a hole in them.'
'Is it poisonous?'
'Extremely so. I dare say it will attack you directly. I have very little doubt of it. Was I to put the silk stockings over my worsted stockings, sure the hole would not show: but then, I should stifle with heat. Do you not find it uncommonly hot?'
'Oh, it must be two fathoms long. Tell me, is it really poisonous? On your oath now?'
'If you thrust your hand down its throat as far as its back teeth you may meet a little venom; but not otherwise.'

(see pages 205-206)

I love how Jack it totally focused on this scary snake, and Stephen (while debating the merits of various stockings!) says the snake is just as dangerous as Jack wants it to be. :)

Fun mental image of Jack on the chair, yelping about the snake, while Stephen rather absent-mindedly is going through his stockings.

I also liked the scene of Stephen commandeered by a hypochondriac seeking some medical advice. The more things change...

Very true Mary Ellen!

Mary Ellen wrote: "Fun mental image of Jack on the chair, yelping about the snake, while Stephen rather absent-mindedly is going through his stockings.

I also liked the scene of Stephen commandeered by a hypocho..."

I like your summary. :)

For anyone interested in the music, this chapter mentions Mozart's B flat quartet (page 206). According to wikipedia, this is one of the 6 string quartets written by Mozart and dedicated to his friend (and fellow composer) Joseph Haydn. Hence it is one of the "Haydn Quartets." They were written around 1785, so were around 15 years old at the time of the book. See

To listen to a version on YouTube:

For those interested in snakes, here are some links on the Montpellier snake:





According to these sites, Stephen is right that it is poisonous, but the venom is in the back of the mouth and not extremely dangerous. The planetpassion site says, "The Montpellier snake can attain a length of more than 2 metres and has a menacing and ferocious appearance, large eyes with round pupils surrounded by clearly visible rims." Go look at the pictures and you can sympathize with Jack. It does look scary.

The second site says that "The Montpellier snake was first described by Hermann in 1804." So Stephen missed his chance to be the first to describe the snake. :) It is commonly found on the Mediterranean side/coast of France.

By the way, a fathom is 1.82 meters long. Since the websites say the Montpellier snake can reach about 2 meters in length, Jack is probably adding some length due to fear when he says the snake "must be two fathoms long" (page 206).

Hi Elizabeth, some great posts there. I enjoyed listening to Mozart's B flat quartet while typing this response, many thanks :)
I also enjoyed the links to the Montpellier snake, very informative.

Elizabeth S wrote: "For those interested in snakes, here are some links on the Montpellier snake:


..."

I like the part Elizabeth where it says this kind of snake dislikes water (grin). It is an ugly snake for sure.

Elizabeth, thanks for the wonderful posts & links. That snake really looks angry, doesn't it? But I can see how Stephen finds it beautiful, too -- particularly the photo of the juvenile. Gorgeous patterns on its skin.

Now I'll listen to the Mozart as I work!

You are welcome, to anyone who liked the snakes and/or the Mozart. :) Kinda fun to see/hear examples of what the characters experienced. (Excluding, of course, the real-life experiences that would make me sea-sick, such as actually sailing in the Sophie.)

I've been noticing that Stephen, and sometimes Jack, give us short nuggets of truth. Or is it truth? Some would be fun to debate both sides of.

For example, in the last chapter (page 194), Stephen says, "Patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile." Does anyone agree or disagree on either what patriotism generally means, or on whether the definitions are infamous and imbecile?

In this chapter (page 218) while discussing the discipline that is part of the ship, Jack says, "By learning to obey, they are also taught how to command." Is that truth? Does obedience lead to leadership ability?

Elizabeth, thanks for sharing the fruits of your close reading with us! I think Stephen is a bit closer to the mark here; I agree that the cited "definitions" are, respectively, infamous and imbecile. Also that they are not too uncommon! But I like to think of myself as patriotic while not holding to either of these definitions.

Certainly one learns a bit about being a good leader by being led and, in the process, watching and learning from the (good or bad!) example. But not everyone who learns how to obey is going to know how to lead.

I too liked the scene that Rick quoted. I'm curious though, what was Stephen supposed to do with the outstretched fingers? Kiss them? I fear I would have been just as awkward as Stephen in that situation.

I think what Jack is showing with the comment about learning to obey is being taught how to command is an observation on the start of a professional military.

What Jack appears to realize is that you need to develop leaders. The men have to know how to sail if they are one day going to take command. They are starting step one and it must be taken seriously if a nation is going to develop a strong military.

Training leaders is going away from the notion that someone is an officer by birth and moving toward a the notion that a someone can be taught how to be a leader.

It just struck me as this is the crossroads where military's started turning into the more currently held viewpoint where birthright is diminished and ability is enhanced.

Don wrote: "I too liked the scene that Rick quoted. I'm curious though, what was Stephen supposed to do with the outstretched fingers? Kiss them? I fear I would have been just as awkward as Stephen in that ..."

That is a good question, Don. I was rather confused by that one, too. O'Brian is certainly not afraid to put his characters in uncomfortable situations.

I think you are right, Mary Ellen, that patriotism doesn't always mean one of those two things. But when it does, it is infamous and imbecile. Am I limited in my perspective to think that such short-sighted versions of patriotism are less frequent today than 200 years ago? Or are things just as bad now?

Well said, that not everyone who learns to obey is a good leader. The question is, can one be a good leader if one has never learned to obey? My initial thought is, no. But I'm open to other thoughts on the subject. Anyone?

Elizabeth S wrote: "Don wrote: "I too liked the scene that Rick quoted. I'm curious though, what was Stephen supposed to do with the outstretched fingers? Kiss them? I fear I would have been just as awkward as Step..."

I think Stephen was expected to shake Captain Harte's hand. That he dangled two fingers showed how little he cared to make Stephan's acquaintance.

Elizabeth S wrote: "I think you are right, Mary Ellen, that patriotism doesn't always mean one of those two things. But when it does, it is infamous and imbecile. Am I limited in my perspective to think that such sh..."

I was thinking it means learning discipline. The leader has to be more disciplined than those he is leading and making him obey will make that discipline a habit.

Rodney wrote: "...It just struck me as this is the crossroads where military's started turning into the more currently held viewpoint where birthright is diminished and ability is enhanced. "

I think this is part of why the Napoleanic times were so interesting in British history. It really is the beginning of such a turning point. There was quite a lot to change, which is why change didn't happen overnight.

We've had some good insights into the training of the next round of naval leaders in this chapter. We did get some idea earlier, when Stephen had his tour of the ship. I think it helps make the story and events more real, because we get a view of the future of the navy, not just a snapshot of the current status.

I agree with Rodney in his post about training your future leaders, leaning the ropes as such and advancement upon merit not birthright.
One of the fascinating things about the Napoleonic period is this was exactly what France was doing but it made many European Monarchs and aristocrats, British as well for that matter, very uncomfortable.
The idea of advancement based on experience and merit replacing a man’s given ‘birthright’ was very scary to those who had a lot to lose if French revolutionary ideas spread across Europe and jumped the Channel!
Why exactly was Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia all united against France?

Hi after some furious reading I have caught up. I have to agree with Mary Ellen I love the image of Jack on the chair while Stephen worries about his stockings. It may be due to my profession but I love the thought of man of such rank jumping on the chair.

Another section I found interesting was on page 184 of my copy. It was when the crew was being flogged, and how Jack noticed the bosun was hitting the capstan with the knotted end of the whip.I find it telling how it lets it continue.

Also on the next page Stephen comments on "how those who not habituated with it would find it barbaric". "And how little it matters to those that are". I find this comment interesting as it made me ponder on how easy humans can adjust to such situations.

Hi Michael,

Glad you have caught up with the group, it's a pretty good book isn't it! I've been pleasantly surprised. I don't know about the rest of you but I have watched the movie 'Master & Commander' a few times so in my mind when I am reading about Jack and Stephen in a situation or conversation I picture Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany, does anyone else have this problem?

LOL Rick. I have the same "problem" too. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I've had a pretty solid image of Jack and Stephen in my mind before starting the book. I'll probably watch the movie again shortly after I finish the book.

Fortunatley I have not had that mental image.......until now. Thanks Aussie Rick :)

Glad you caught up, Michael. One of the advantages of these historical fictions is that it is easier to catch up.

I agree with what you said about Stephen's comments on the barbarity of flogging. I think it also helps us, the readers, to view the characters involved with eyes of the times, rather than judging them by today's standards. It also tells us a little more about Stephen. He has a tendency to step aside mentally to analyze situations, even as they are happening.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Some great posts here with some excellent observations. I'd like to mention one part of the book that I really enjoyed which was the bit about Molly Harte's party that Jack invited Stephen along to..."

I don't quite get this exchange.. Does anyone care to explain?

This was an older book discussion of Master and Commander - Hamdanil - are you reading this book now or the series - it is a great one.

At the beginning - Elizabeth gave a summary of the chapter - and then she wondered about how drunkeness was handled differently depending who was getting drunk

Elizabeth pointed out that - "Jack being drunk at a party on shore just means someone has to drag him away before he does himself a disservice. The Sophies being drunk on board means a flogging".

So you can see that Elizabeth thought there was a double standard when the captain was drunk and humiliating himself versus the hired hands who were beaten for it.

Patrick pointed out that the commander could have liquor on board where the ship mates could not and they could not work and drink so they would be punished if they were drinking on the job.

Mary Ellen understood how frustrated Stephen was when Dillon did not like or see the good in his friend that he did.

Rodney thought that there was a different mindset in terms of what they perceived officers were allowed and capable of doing versus the ship mates - in this case they were talking about the drinking again.

Aussie Rick discussed the social commentary when Stephen was being introduced by Jack and the Hartes were bent on not liking him and showed it - and then how Stephen reacted in a way that was humorous to the reader.

Erick aptly stated - I think Stephen was expected to shake Captain Harte's hand. That he (meaning Mr. Harte) dangled two fingers showed how little he cared to make Stephan's acquaintance.

The group members felt when they read that section - that the Hartes treated Stephen with utter contempt - so in return - Stephen acted quite humorously when this happened. Stephen in return simply - just sort of bowed his head - and did not take the offered two fingers of Mr. Harte - he just left them dangling. And Stephen just did not bother touching them in any way and Harte then appeared to be looking foolish.

Do you understand the exchange now.

Hamdanil wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Some great posts here with some excellent observations. I'd like to mention one part of the book that I really enjoyed which was the bit about Molly Harte's party that Jack in..."

Yes, I am reading this book now. And found the per-chapter discussion in this thread very useful, even though they're from a couple of years ago :)

Thanks for the explanation, I still don't get the part where Stephen is introduced to the Hartes. Why was she "instantly prepared to dislike him very much"? It also mentions that he dislike him "for an entirely opposite reason", what does "entirely opposite reason" refer to here?

We keep our threads open - Master and Commander never gets old (smile). OK - Harte who is the Captain and station commandant at Port Mahon has a strong grudge against Aubrey because of the rumors or talk of a scarcely concealed affair that Aubrey is having with his wife Mrs. Harte. So you can understand why Harte would hate Aubrey and maybe his friend. Not sure why Mrs. Harte thought she would hate him too and then decided that she liked him for obviously standing up to her husband and being nothing like him - Stephen had a thing about authority and did not bow to it nor did he take orders well especially from someone he would never respect like Harte who was Jack's superior.

Entirely opposite is like night and day, dark and light, sun and moon, cold and hot. Do you get it.

So for whatever reason Mr. Harte did not like Stephen - then Mrs. Harte would find something likable in him in contrast to her husband who she did not respect obviously.

Where are you from Hamdanil and what state or country are you living in?

Bentley wrote: "We keep our threads open - Master and Commander never gets old (smile). OK - Harte who is the Captain and station commandant at Port Mahon has a strong grudge against Aubrey because of the rumors..."

I understand why Mr Harte would hate Aubrey and by extension his friend Stephen, but the dialog mentioned that it is Mrs Harte who 'instantly dislike' him first. I wonder why? And also, why is Mr Harte's reason for dislike 'entirely opposite' from Mrs Harte's reason for dislike?

Maybe she is jealous of the friendship between Jack and Stephen - or maybe because Stephen was an odd duck (odd person).

Mr. Harte just does not like anything associated with Jack Aubrey - he hates him because he knows he suspects strongly that Jack is having an affair with his wife. So since he hates Jack - anything associated with Jack he does not like either.

It is obvious that Mr. Harte does not get along with Mrs Harte (smile).