Talk:The Mauritius Command

1977 linked
From the WP:DATE style guide: "Usage of links for date preferences

Examples where date preferences do not work: year only. So 1974 → 1974. Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic."

I believe that linking the year the book was published to the year in literature is a helpful link for the reader to help the reader understand and place the book in historical context of its publication. MikeBriggs 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Myers, Irish Times quote
I'm not sure this article is the best place for this quote. There are two sources I have found for this quote neither of which makes plain that this aquote is tied to comments on "this" novel. Maybe I have missed it or perhaps it should move to the series article. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  10:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All these years later, -- the Kevin Myers quote is still used for this book, as the quote is found on the web page at W W Norton for this novel, http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Mauritius-Command/ . There is another W W Norton web page called quotes, which puts Myers with The Fortune of War, http://www.wwnorton.com/pob/quotes.htm, but it is a different quote in a different newspaper, so Myers may have written several reviews of the novels in this series. I have not found a date for the quote, nor has it popped up in a search of the google book online of A. E. Cunningham, the essays with one titled Four Decades of Reviews, organized by novel. Looking at that book on paper might make it certain. It is more certain now, but it would be better to see the archives of the Irish Times to be sure of the novel under review and the year of the review, both. My assumption for now is that the review was written when the Norton re-issue came out in 1991, rather than first publishing in 1978, an arbitrary choice absent the date.  --Prairieplant (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary
Plot summary has been revised, but is still rather long. Changes were made to match the plot (that is, correct minor errors), to shorten some parts (the action at Île de la Passe is so complex for a summary) and add others (Maturin using his spy skills to influence Admiral Bertie in Aubrey's favor). I hope more errors were removed than added and this article is still B class! --Prairieplant (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

can anyone use the books in Bibliography to provide in line citations?
The books in the bibliography are not used, not with page cites, for any section in the article. Could someone who has those books enrich the sections on allusions to real events and people, etc. with such references? The theme section could use similar improvements. I do not have access to those books, which is why I ask, instead of do the work myself. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Pennant vs. Pendant
Hey, your edit summary for reverting my change of pendant to pennant says "pendant is the term in the novel, and correct". Are we working from different editions? My copy is a 2002 reprint of the 1996, UK, Harper Collins Paperback ISBN 0-00-649918-X edition. As to pendant being the term in the novel, in my edition it is not even a term. I cannot find a single instance of the spelling "pendant", while the spelling "pennant" is everywhere. I'll spare you a detailed list of quotes and page numbers, but here is its first appearance (on page 60):
 * "But what concerns me most, as we get closer to the Cape, is the possibility of a pennant, and what comes with it" ... "What I mean is the broad pennant," Stephen looked stupid. "The broad pennant, Stephen, that shows you are a commodore: and what comes with it is high command."

and another significant instance (page 82):
 * "The orders were clear, concise, and urgent: the Admiral had obviously had his way. Aubrey was directed and required to repair aboard the Raisonable; to hoist his pennant; to take the ships and vessels named in the margin under his command; etc..."

This spelling also allows an unambiguous link to the article on Broad pennant. Are we good to make this change? nerdgoonrant (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate the time you took to cite the text from the edition you read. Broad pendant is a term used in the Royal Navy in that era, and the term used in this novel, definitely in the edition I heard, an audio book, whose info (ISBN, publisher) is not at my hand this minute. Went through this discussion in August 2015 and first in June 2015, when changed it. I added a sentence to the Allusions section, with a reference to a Royal Navy book from the 19th century, which clearly uses the term 'broad pendant'. My own view, I do not think the wikilink to that little stub article is of much importance especially as it mentions practices beginning 1826 -- long after this story is set, so I would not use that to drive the decision for this article. If the Wikipedia article had more to say, it might be worth a link; I think the link to the old Royal Navy text is more helpful, my view. A simple google search, shows more useful sources. A difference in editions of this novel is more perplexing. Publishers are supposed to be accurate!


 * There is a google book of this novel that shows "broad pendant" throughout the novel at https://books.google.com/books?id=jhXKo7XLIGEC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=broad+pendant+in+The+Mauritius+Command+Patrick+O%27Brian&source=bl&ots=jsI9TTS_Sh&sig=W-OEfnQhuFTepfi-mIUs_9jxnok&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj70Pnll7HRAhXB5IMKHSOODdEQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=broad%20pendant%20in%20The%20Mauritius%20Command%20Patrick%20O%27Brian&f=false and this book is the W. W. Norton 1991 edition, ISBN 9780393060492. I feel relieved I can cite a specific edition, even if the copy I read is not with me now. Are the publishers messing with us, changing the spelling of words in the novel? I remember this word because I looked it up when I first heard it. W. W. Norton is the US publisher, and Norton re-issued the HarperCollins text or so the story goes. FWIW, when I use broad pendant as a search term, sources showing broad pendant as a term in the US Navy, in the era of the War of 1812, pop up (e.g., http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2012/Issue17/Commodores.pdf). My own choice is to use pendant in the plot summary, with the short explanation in the Allusions section, with a citation to Royal Navy terms in that era. But readers like you who never see the word in their edition, that is harder to resolve. Do we add to Allusions that some editions spell the word as pennant? That might be the simplest, but there may be other ways.  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's quite irritating when publishers make silent changes of this kind between additions. I would suggest that we use the first edition wording wherever possible (which I assume to be "pendant"), followed by the alternative in parentheses, thus: broad pendant ('broad pennant' in some editions). I've made a suggested change to the article along those lines. What do you think? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That works. Maybe it will stop random changes to the word, with it made clear that the publishers are not consistent. Thanks .  --Prairieplant (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have the audio book that uses pendant throughout the book. Plus I noticed that the prior book in the series, H.M.S. Surprise, from a different audio book publisher, uses pendant also. In particular in Chapter 9, after they have gone around Africa in the high latitudes with many storms losing many sails and the pendant, that the pendant for Surprise had grown to 60 feet once the ship was in warmer seas. The second name in each case is the narrator of the audiobook. Both books have a copyright for the audio edition and also show the copyright year for first publication of the novel under O'Brian's name: 1973 for H.M.S. Surprise and 1977 for The Mauritius Command.


 * --Prairieplant (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)