Who says proper criticism dead? What a superbly clear and cogent argument, tautly rigged. I am going to share it with a man not on Substack, my own captain who trained me in the arts of editing and managing alike, Stuart Proffitt, who was O'Brian's closing publisher for his last decade as a writer. He, a conservative, will love your argument as much as I, a socialist, did, I am sure.
Yes he is utterly brilliant. I am right now 17 books into my (latest) re-read. Regarding Maturin’s stated loyalties — to individuals only — there’s an intriguing passage in I think possibly “The Commodore” (or thereabouts) where he looks back at his diaries from the time of “Master and Commander” and seems to repudiate this, registering surprise at his former rejection of all causes, great or small, and even characterising it as something approaching spiritual death. Interesting, in that I also sensed that the Maturin of MaC was speaking for the author. I wonder whether O’Brian’s views on this also evolved over the years? Or perhaps he felt the need to account for the fact that the apparently cause-averse Maturin spends most of the series engaged in the service of one great cause after another… or perhaps the apparent contradiction isn’t one after all, and Maturin’s true dedication is to individuals over systems, and this informs his crusading opposition to the great systematiser, Bonaparte, as well as the systems of slavery and colonialism (while of course being carried about on the most advanced technological systems of his day, in the nominal service of the most successful empire of all time!)
This is the sort of dichotomy that runs throughout the books: what’s wonderful is the way in which the two sides are constantly evolving, flowing in and out of one another, taking on different valences (a near-perfect image of what I’m talking about is ready to hand in the form of the duets that the two men play, cello and violin lines improvising back and forth, sometimes intertwining, “tweedle-deedle, night after night” as Killick indignantly puts it, throughout the entire series).
That is plausibly so on The Commodore - the weakness of this post is that it's based on the 2.5 books I've read/listened to in the last few weeks - it's four years since the previous re-read, and I wasn't taking notes then (though I was thinking about some of these themes). I love the way you connect the music and the conversations.
Thank you for going after Janan Ganesh, a writer whose work prompted me to cancel my FT subscription a while back.
His fling against Patrick O’Brian is typical of his snarky arrogance, and he is welcome to the joy of it (as Aubrey would say, while knocking back a glass of sillary).
I have read the Aubrey-Maturin series several times, and every five years or so I start at the beginning again. There is always something new, something I missed before, and I have never found so many layers in any other writer. The only book I am yet to read is the last one: ‘Blue at the Mizzen’, because to read it would require me to accept the series is at an end. My wife mocks me for this sentimentality, and Maturin would as well.
Is PoB a conservative though? I’m not so sure. He wasn’t even very nautical, so his ability to present a view of the world may not reflect his place in it. The interplay between Aubrey and Maturin, the yin/yang of toryism and enlightenment, does not reach a conclusion, I think. Sometimes Aubrey has the upper hand (as in the passages about leadership that you cite), but at other times Maturin clearly has the author’s favour, despite his drug use, embrace of Diana’s moral flexibility, and surprising ability to carry out cold-hearted assassinations, the brutality of which shock even Aubrey.
I read Maturin as presenting a more subtle flavor of conservatism rather than Enlightenment values. The radical hints of Master and Commander blur out over the books in favor of a general hatred of Napoleon and idiosyncratic combination of individualism and nationalism. He is a man of science, but not of system.
I have always read him as the sort of person who was involved in a revolutionary movement or political uprising and became disenchanted with the idea of radical change as a consequence. I recall that in _Clarissa Oakes_ he articulates a kind of "leave people alone" small-l libertarian viewpoint that seems in keeping with his outlook (though it also allows the action of the novel to continue, I suppose!)
Perhaps Maturin is, in our modern parlance, ‘complicated’. It’s hard to explain his propensity to call men out for a duel. He is indifferent to wealth, but will sell his soul for a dodo carcass. He encapsulates the liberal contradictions of a sense of a better (scientific) world, yet attracted to the relics of privilege, education and connections.
Lovely piece. Too bad for Ganesh missing the virtue of the middlebrow. You could, for example, make the case that Le Carre's central thesis is about how public organizations work: they suck the motivation out of their members, making massive errors, shift blame, and promote the politically astute over the more capable actors. In a way that is different from Greene, he focuses on the creaky bureaucracy and not just the spies that occupy it.
On Master and Commander, one other element is Aubrey's conservatism is his emphasis on tradition. Especially in the early novels, he spends a good deal of time evoking the hallowed traditions of the service as a justification for his actions.
Yesterday, was continuing to listen to H.M.S. Surprise while out walking the dog (and sorry that there is now no possibility of running into you!) and there is a nice short disquisition from Stephen starting, "You are hag-ridden by custom in the Navy."
On the main point, Le Carre is indeed very good on just that point, and on the hero as capable bureaucrat amidst the mess rather than man of action. Also, Tinker, Tailor as a detective story of bureaucracy; the crucial importance of files, and of budget forensics ...
I remember one of the true laugh-out-loud moments somewhere in the early phase of the series, where Aubrey is disagreeing violently with an admiral (Admiral Mitchell perhaps?) and repeatedly deploying this phrase, eventually getting so far under the admiral’s skin that he bursts out with, ‘“Fuck the immemorial custom of the service!”’ Both men are shocked to silence by this. Pretty sure Aubrey ends up getting his way.
Thanks. This was a great defense of O’Brian, who I finally started reading last year. I wish someone will do a similar defense of le Carré, who is similarly slandered in the quoted passage. Different politics from O’Brian of course, who focuses on a completely different British era and institution, but it is frankly madness to also dismiss le Carré as un-literary or just some kind of Dad read. The two writers are similar in that they have a particular literary project that they pursue and iterate on over their careers. And they were also both commercially successful, which might be the real problem.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t have any affinity for LC’s politics or interpretations of the modern world; I have all the affinity I can for his gifts as a psychological observer, prose stylist, etc. The opening of “Single & Single,” to take one tiny example among hundreds, is unforgettable; so too the end of “The Honorable Schoolboy,” at least for me. I could go on, but lordy: what a crazy take, that there’s nothing enriching about LC!
The subtlety with which he conveys Maturin's many shades of irony is extraordinary. And the Irish accent is a perfectly creditable representation, despite occasional tiny solecisms (no-one born outside the 26 counties could be expected to know how to pronounce Naas e.g.).
Excellent stuff, thank you! Might I suggest that the mode of conservatism you describe owes much to the principle of subsidiarity, under which rule is to be exercised by those authorities closest to the community being ruled? Fathers of families, dukes of their estates, captains of their ships, priests of their parishes, etc. This should (should) keep authority from becoming distant, Whiggish and merely efficient by incarnating it in the specific circumstances and relationships of the human beings involved.
interesting you bring up chris arnade. i found his journey from finance bro to "underclass whisperer" interesting at very first (back when i used to real naked capitalism and that sector of strange conspiracy-adjacent very online financially literate people) and since trumpism find him increasingly untethered and unpalatable. at base is his bad faith openness to the worst actors in society as a reactionary stance to the ostensible hegemony of liberalism and his generosity and faith to an underclass of *one* type that he thinks is downtrodden, and not the rest. i find him quite insufferable and perhaps that is why bringing him up as a kind of conservative cipher is interesting....
A life long lefty lawyer, I've always viewed O'brian as a personal hero. Thanks for explaining why. Almost as much fun are the Sharpe novels by Bernard Cornwell. Same time period but set in the Napoleonic land wars. The hero Sharpe, child of the gutter, finds the same values that shape Aubrey. So maybe not a complete lefty.
I think this is an excellent analysis of the appeal of O'Brien. I had never put it together like this for myself, but every bit seemed right as you unfolded it. So thanks!
Who says proper criticism dead? What a superbly clear and cogent argument, tautly rigged. I am going to share it with a man not on Substack, my own captain who trained me in the arts of editing and managing alike, Stuart Proffitt, who was O'Brian's closing publisher for his last decade as a writer. He, a conservative, will love your argument as much as I, a socialist, did, I am sure.
Thank you, and I would of course be delighted if you shared it.
I had a similar urge to send it to William Waldegrave
Yes he is utterly brilliant. I am right now 17 books into my (latest) re-read. Regarding Maturin’s stated loyalties — to individuals only — there’s an intriguing passage in I think possibly “The Commodore” (or thereabouts) where he looks back at his diaries from the time of “Master and Commander” and seems to repudiate this, registering surprise at his former rejection of all causes, great or small, and even characterising it as something approaching spiritual death. Interesting, in that I also sensed that the Maturin of MaC was speaking for the author. I wonder whether O’Brian’s views on this also evolved over the years? Or perhaps he felt the need to account for the fact that the apparently cause-averse Maturin spends most of the series engaged in the service of one great cause after another… or perhaps the apparent contradiction isn’t one after all, and Maturin’s true dedication is to individuals over systems, and this informs his crusading opposition to the great systematiser, Bonaparte, as well as the systems of slavery and colonialism (while of course being carried about on the most advanced technological systems of his day, in the nominal service of the most successful empire of all time!)
This is the sort of dichotomy that runs throughout the books: what’s wonderful is the way in which the two sides are constantly evolving, flowing in and out of one another, taking on different valences (a near-perfect image of what I’m talking about is ready to hand in the form of the duets that the two men play, cello and violin lines improvising back and forth, sometimes intertwining, “tweedle-deedle, night after night” as Killick indignantly puts it, throughout the entire series).
That is plausibly so on The Commodore - the weakness of this post is that it's based on the 2.5 books I've read/listened to in the last few weeks - it's four years since the previous re-read, and I wasn't taking notes then (though I was thinking about some of these themes). I love the way you connect the music and the conversations.
Thank you for going after Janan Ganesh, a writer whose work prompted me to cancel my FT subscription a while back.
His fling against Patrick O’Brian is typical of his snarky arrogance, and he is welcome to the joy of it (as Aubrey would say, while knocking back a glass of sillary).
I have read the Aubrey-Maturin series several times, and every five years or so I start at the beginning again. There is always something new, something I missed before, and I have never found so many layers in any other writer. The only book I am yet to read is the last one: ‘Blue at the Mizzen’, because to read it would require me to accept the series is at an end. My wife mocks me for this sentimentality, and Maturin would as well.
Is PoB a conservative though? I’m not so sure. He wasn’t even very nautical, so his ability to present a view of the world may not reflect his place in it. The interplay between Aubrey and Maturin, the yin/yang of toryism and enlightenment, does not reach a conclusion, I think. Sometimes Aubrey has the upper hand (as in the passages about leadership that you cite), but at other times Maturin clearly has the author’s favour, despite his drug use, embrace of Diana’s moral flexibility, and surprising ability to carry out cold-hearted assassinations, the brutality of which shock even Aubrey.
I read Maturin as presenting a more subtle flavor of conservatism rather than Enlightenment values. The radical hints of Master and Commander blur out over the books in favor of a general hatred of Napoleon and idiosyncratic combination of individualism and nationalism. He is a man of science, but not of system.
I have always read him as the sort of person who was involved in a revolutionary movement or political uprising and became disenchanted with the idea of radical change as a consequence. I recall that in _Clarissa Oakes_ he articulates a kind of "leave people alone" small-l libertarian viewpoint that seems in keeping with his outlook (though it also allows the action of the novel to continue, I suppose!)
Perhaps Maturin is, in our modern parlance, ‘complicated’. It’s hard to explain his propensity to call men out for a duel. He is indifferent to wealth, but will sell his soul for a dodo carcass. He encapsulates the liberal contradictions of a sense of a better (scientific) world, yet attracted to the relics of privilege, education and connections.
Lovely piece. Too bad for Ganesh missing the virtue of the middlebrow. You could, for example, make the case that Le Carre's central thesis is about how public organizations work: they suck the motivation out of their members, making massive errors, shift blame, and promote the politically astute over the more capable actors. In a way that is different from Greene, he focuses on the creaky bureaucracy and not just the spies that occupy it.
On Master and Commander, one other element is Aubrey's conservatism is his emphasis on tradition. Especially in the early novels, he spends a good deal of time evoking the hallowed traditions of the service as a justification for his actions.
Yesterday, was continuing to listen to H.M.S. Surprise while out walking the dog (and sorry that there is now no possibility of running into you!) and there is a nice short disquisition from Stephen starting, "You are hag-ridden by custom in the Navy."
On the main point, Le Carre is indeed very good on just that point, and on the hero as capable bureaucrat amidst the mess rather than man of action. Also, Tinker, Tailor as a detective story of bureaucracy; the crucial importance of files, and of budget forensics ...
‘“The immemorial custom of the service!”’
I remember one of the true laugh-out-loud moments somewhere in the early phase of the series, where Aubrey is disagreeing violently with an admiral (Admiral Mitchell perhaps?) and repeatedly deploying this phrase, eventually getting so far under the admiral’s skin that he bursts out with, ‘“Fuck the immemorial custom of the service!”’ Both men are shocked to silence by this. Pretty sure Aubrey ends up getting his way.
Thank you for this. I’m rereading O’Brian now, with love as always, and you’ve added another layer to my pleasure. I take it most kindly indeed.
Thanks. This was a great defense of O’Brian, who I finally started reading last year. I wish someone will do a similar defense of le Carré, who is similarly slandered in the quoted passage. Different politics from O’Brian of course, who focuses on a completely different British era and institution, but it is frankly madness to also dismiss le Carré as un-literary or just some kind of Dad read. The two writers are similar in that they have a particular literary project that they pursue and iterate on over their careers. And they were also both commercially successful, which might be the real problem.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t have any affinity for LC’s politics or interpretations of the modern world; I have all the affinity I can for his gifts as a psychological observer, prose stylist, etc. The opening of “Single & Single,” to take one tiny example among hundreds, is unforgettable; so too the end of “The Honorable Schoolboy,” at least for me. I could go on, but lordy: what a crazy take, that there’s nothing enriching about LC!
Patrick Tull forever, and accept no substitutes. Nobody else comes within a nautical mile of doing Maturin justice.
The subtlety with which he conveys Maturin's many shades of irony is extraordinary. And the Irish accent is a perfectly creditable representation, despite occasional tiny solecisms (no-one born outside the 26 counties could be expected to know how to pronounce Naas e.g.).
Excellent stuff, thank you! Might I suggest that the mode of conservatism you describe owes much to the principle of subsidiarity, under which rule is to be exercised by those authorities closest to the community being ruled? Fathers of families, dukes of their estates, captains of their ships, priests of their parishes, etc. This should (should) keep authority from becoming distant, Whiggish and merely efficient by incarnating it in the specific circumstances and relationships of the human beings involved.
interesting you bring up chris arnade. i found his journey from finance bro to "underclass whisperer" interesting at very first (back when i used to real naked capitalism and that sector of strange conspiracy-adjacent very online financially literate people) and since trumpism find him increasingly untethered and unpalatable. at base is his bad faith openness to the worst actors in society as a reactionary stance to the ostensible hegemony of liberalism and his generosity and faith to an underclass of *one* type that he thinks is downtrodden, and not the rest. i find him quite insufferable and perhaps that is why bringing him up as a kind of conservative cipher is interesting....
A life long lefty lawyer, I've always viewed O'brian as a personal hero. Thanks for explaining why. Almost as much fun are the Sharpe novels by Bernard Cornwell. Same time period but set in the Napoleonic land wars. The hero Sharpe, child of the gutter, finds the same values that shape Aubrey. So maybe not a complete lefty.
I think this is an excellent analysis of the appeal of O'Brien. I had never put it together like this for myself, but every bit seemed right as you unfolded it. So thanks!
thank you!
Looks like you left your writing notes at the bottom of the page.