Roman fleuve, roman océan
Jul. 7th, 2018 10:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shewhomustHaving found a copy of Treason's Harbour in Berwick, I started reading it as soon as I had finished 60 Degrees North: well, I was on holiday... It's a while since I read a single O'Brian, rather than a batch of them, and I reached the end wanting more. There was quite a lot left unresolved when I ran out of book (and am I the only one who feels perennially cheated by the inclusion at the end of the book of an essay on - well, in this case 'The Medical World of Stephen Maturin'? No doubt it's kindly meant, but I have to keep reminding myself that the pages left don't promise that much more story, there is the essay to be allowed for - but I digress). I know by now that O'Brian doesn't feel the need to tie all the knots himself, that he trusts the reader to fill in some gaps (Jack and Sophie manage to get married offstage, between volumes, don't they?). Some of the unfinished business of Treason's Harbour may well be matter for a continuing arc of story, but I didn't feel that the book's adventures had been completed before the reunion of Mr and Mrs Fielding. Indeed, I felt this strongly enough to consider purchasing The Far Side of the World new, until I saw what Amazon were charging for it: I might pay that to an independent local bookseller, someone I want to support, but Amazon? I don't think so. Also, Amazon gave me the opportunity to peek at the opening pages of The Far Side of the World, and of course it doesn't pick up where Treason's Harbour leaves off, of course it doesn't. So I decided I might as well read something else, it's not as if I were short of other things to read,
But it set me wondering about the way O'Brian structures the books. I have a friend who is deeply enthusiastic about the series, but says, "The clever thing is that nothing ever happens..." This is a perverse thing to say about books which are full of naval battles, blood and thunder, voyages and shipwrecks and storms at sea; in which Jack's career, despite the delays and setbacks, slowly advances. What's more, the books are full of colourful detail: in that sense, Treason's Harbour is the one with the diving bell. What that ending made me feel, though, was that I hadn't read a freestanding novel - even a novel that is one of a series - but a length snipped out of a much longer novel. This felt like a fresh perception, but I see that I wrote, three years ago, considering several 'series novels' I was currently embarked on:
I didn't - and don't - have the same sense with Terry Pratchett (I had just started a re-read of the Tiffany Aching books). Is that just because Pratchett alternates his focus between different groups of characters, while O'Brian stays with Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin, that Discworld feels like a series, Aubrey / Maturin like a roman fleuve? I was pleased with the formulation that it's more of a roman océan: I pictured O'Brian dipping a ladle into the waters and spooning out each successive volume - but of course that won't do, this is not Tolkien's Cauldron of Story, the narrative may be elliptical but it is entirely linear.
Except for one thing. The series starts with Jack already having attained the position of 'Master and Commander'. It occurs to me that Stephen has also reached an advanced stage of his various careers, but it is Jack whose reminiscences flesh out his backstory. To what extent are gaps in the narrative retrospectively filled in? My memory is patchy, but surely some of the past exploits described in Treason's Harbour are events described in earlier books? Does this mean that the same applies to those earlier books, and I didn't notice? It's perfectly possible. I could pretend that I will pay more attention in future, but I probably won't; there's a great pleasure in swimming in this ocean, letting the story wash over me, paying very little attention to the naval engagements and Jack's skilful manipulation of his rigging, over which the author has taken such pains. He deserves a better reader than me, and fortunately he has many such. Let the record show, though, that Treason's Harbour is the volume in which I began to suspect this backstitching.
But it set me wondering about the way O'Brian structures the books. I have a friend who is deeply enthusiastic about the series, but says, "The clever thing is that nothing ever happens..." This is a perverse thing to say about books which are full of naval battles, blood and thunder, voyages and shipwrecks and storms at sea; in which Jack's career, despite the delays and setbacks, slowly advances. What's more, the books are full of colourful detail: in that sense, Treason's Harbour is the one with the diving bell. What that ending made me feel, though, was that I hadn't read a freestanding novel - even a novel that is one of a series - but a length snipped out of a much longer novel. This felt like a fresh perception, but I see that I wrote, three years ago, considering several 'series novels' I was currently embarked on:
This is not a criticism of O'Brian: but in the course of reading HMS Surprise I wondered whether the reason I find the Aubrey/Maturin books so moreish is that they are not structured as individual novels. Bear in mind that this is based only on the first three of the series, but there seems to be an overall story - the career of Jack Aubrey - and a large number of incidents, but not much in the way of plot at the individual novel level. These are long, solid books, but reading one is like reading an individual issue of a comic; stopping between volumes feels like stopping in mid-story.
I didn't - and don't - have the same sense with Terry Pratchett (I had just started a re-read of the Tiffany Aching books). Is that just because Pratchett alternates his focus between different groups of characters, while O'Brian stays with Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin, that Discworld feels like a series, Aubrey / Maturin like a roman fleuve? I was pleased with the formulation that it's more of a roman océan: I pictured O'Brian dipping a ladle into the waters and spooning out each successive volume - but of course that won't do, this is not Tolkien's Cauldron of Story, the narrative may be elliptical but it is entirely linear.
Except for one thing. The series starts with Jack already having attained the position of 'Master and Commander'. It occurs to me that Stephen has also reached an advanced stage of his various careers, but it is Jack whose reminiscences flesh out his backstory. To what extent are gaps in the narrative retrospectively filled in? My memory is patchy, but surely some of the past exploits described in Treason's Harbour are events described in earlier books? Does this mean that the same applies to those earlier books, and I didn't notice? It's perfectly possible. I could pretend that I will pay more attention in future, but I probably won't; there's a great pleasure in swimming in this ocean, letting the story wash over me, paying very little attention to the naval engagements and Jack's skilful manipulation of his rigging, over which the author has taken such pains. He deserves a better reader than me, and fortunately he has many such. Let the record show, though, that Treason's Harbour is the volume in which I began to suspect this backstitching.
