Naval ignorance

[rebelatsea]

Having read yet another "alternative history" - no names no pack drill - it drives me insane when otherwise competent authors evidently work hard to get the land warfare and the politics correct so far as I can tell, but make a complete b------cks of anything naval. Aren't there enough expert sources readily available, including CWT ?

Is it laziness or do they think most people won't care -or know the difference?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

There's one "alternate history" out there in particular that earned my ire when it became all too apparent that the author considered one stretch of water as deep as another, as if ships glided along on a level plain; he had no concept of the draft of vessels or the depth of water.

 

[diane]

I'm certainly no expert but I do love it when the author, no matter what the genre, gets it right. I've noticed that of late - authors seem to think no one is actually reading their books, just waiting for the movie/series! That, of course, is a tangent - movie depictions - but I did like Master and Commander. That was well done! (Although they didn't seem to know what master and commander actually meant....)

 

[Carronade]

I'm certainly no expert but I do love it when the author, no matter what the genre, gets it right. I've noticed that of late - authors seem to think no one is actually reading their books, just waiting for the movie/series! That, of course, is a tangent - movie depictions - but I did like Master and Commander. That was well done! (Although they didn't seem to know what master and commander actually meant....)

Yes, if they were to adapt more of O'Brien's books, eventually we'd have Master and Commander: Post Captain

"Sergeant Frank Drebin, Lieutenant, Police Squad."

 

[diane]

Yes, if they were to adapt more of O'Brien's books, eventually we'd have Master and Commander: Post Captain

"Sergeant Frank Drebin, Lieutenant, Police Squad."

Jack would get dizzy!

 

[AndyHall]

I'm certainly no expert but I do love it when the author, no matter what the genre, gets it right. I've noticed that of late - authors seem to think no one is actually reading their books, just waiting for the movie/series! That, of course, is a tangent - movie depictions - but I did like Master and Commander. That was well done! (Although they didn't seem to know what master and commander actually meant....)

The core plot of the film was painfully implausible -- a French privateer super-frigate, really? -- but in its details it was beautiful. I guess it didn't earn the box office sufficient to carry on the franchise.

 

[Carronade]

The core plot of the film was painfully implausible -- a French privateer super-frigate, really? -- but in its details it was beautiful. I guess it didn't earn the box office sufficient to carry on the franchise.

The French Navy actually did lease out frigates to private citizens for use as privateers, but I agree the American-built Constitution clone was a stretch.

I think M&C would have been a strong contender for Best Picture had it not been the same year as the last Lord of the Rings film, the last chance to give one of that series the Oscar.

Some years ago I toured the HMS Rose, the ship which became HMS Surprise for the movie.

 

[diane]

It would have been more fun if he'd gone after Porter in the Essex, as he was doing in the novel. Think that was the Quasi-war?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The French Navy actually did lease out frigates to private citizens for use as privateers, but I agree the American-built Constitution clone was a stretch.

I presume you and Andy know this, but other readers may not: the essential plot drew its inspiration from the cruise of the USS Essex around the Horn into the Pacific in the War of 1812, commanded by David Porter-- father of David Dixon and William David Porter, and foster father of David G. Farragut, who was onboard as a young midshipman.

[Edited] Whups... made a misremembering mistake there. In the book it was the USS Norfolk. The movie was the one changing it to a French ship... I guess to avoid annoying American audiences or something? But it makes less sense that way.

 

[Carronade]

It would have been more fun if he'd gone after Porter in the Essex, as he was doing in the novel. Think that was the Quasi-war?

The novel was set in the War of 1812, with the fictional American ship Norfolk in place of the historical Essex. The conclusion was very different and IMO not very satisfying.

The Quasi-War would probably be too complicated for the typical movie audience - Americans vs. French, also dealing with pirates, and the British alternately helpful and abusive.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

It's a shame, really, since the actual story of the cruise of the Essex and the battle in which she met her demise would've made a fine movie as-is. But writers (and movie-makers, in particular) seem to have a need to rearrange things.

 

[AndyHall]

I guess to avoid annoying American audiences or something?

That's my guess. But it's not the first time something like this has happened. C. S. Forrester was living a comfortable life in sunny Southern California when it came time to write another Hornblower book, covering the period around 1812. Where could he have his hero get in some naval action right then? To the Baltic and Russia, of course!

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Glad he did, though, as Commodore Hornblower is one of my favorites of the series. (That and Hotspur, I think, are my faves.)

(I can't remember where I read this, but it might have been in the Hornblower Companion, that Forester had to do that, lest it be Hornblower's forces bombarding Fort McHenry... in which case, Forester would have been faced with the conundrum of Hornblower failing to take Baltimore.)

 

[diane]

The novel was set in the War of 1812, with the fictional American ship Norfolk in place of the historical Essex. The conclusion was very different and IMO not very satisfying.

The Quasi-War would probably be too complicated for the typical movie audience - Americans vs. French, also dealing with pirates, and the British alternately helpful and abusive.

1812! Where did I get Quasi-war... More coffee...

Hornblower was great. O'Brian based Aubrey off Thomas Cochrane, the original Sea Wolf. Put him with Porter and there's a combination!

 

[kevikens]

Perhaps the French vessel was a converted East Indiaman. These things could carry an extensive battery. Something like the Bon Homme Richard, except with 18 pounders that were not from condemned stores and exploded on firing.

 

[AndyHall]

Naw, the plot line was that the Frenchman was a line-for-line copy of one of the big American frigates -- Constitution, President and United States. Simply making Acheron not a privateer would have been a great conceptual improvement.

But so much else they got really, really right, including the smoke, violence and confusion of a boarding action:

 

[TerryB]

I didn't want to watch M&C when I found out it was filmed in a scaled down mock-up and not at sea. But a girlfriend at work lent me the DVD, and I have to admit I liked it.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

It was a pretty good movie. But, despite some cheesy acting and some other issues, I still prefer Gregory Peck's Captain Horatio Hornblower, R.N. (1951) ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043379/ ).

 

[AndyHall]

Seriously, Virgina Mayo? Terrible casting.

 

[diane]

Naw, the plot line was that the Frenchman was a line-for-line copy of one of the big American frigates -- Constitution, President and United States. Simply making Acheron not a privateer would have been a great conceptual improvement.

But so much else they got really, really right, including the smoke, violence and confusion of a boarding action:

That's a great scene! The dinner party was good, too. The British did like the American frigates, though, and liked to capture them if they could!