I fear that I have to agree that O'Brian's work is much more realistic. I can hope, in vain, of course, considering the caliber of this list, that my weight as a woman who despises war stories, movies and other such icky-ness related to the riddling of bodies with bullet-holes in mass carnage... might be taken into account. I did not find O'Brian's work at all boring. In fact, I found his work stimulating; and it gave me an insight on why men might want to engage in such a terribly messy business. I do think O'Brians work technically beyond very much reproach and, as a story-teller, I could not fault him for a gripping tale that envelopes both the practical and emotional facets of man. Now, for those accustomed to what is currently being put out as movies (by currently, I mean Bruce Willis in "Die Hard" or Sylvester Stallone in the many "Rocky" movies), I can understand why it would seem very boring. It does not have the dramatic and gripping "action" of current or modern films. Nor does the action that does take place such that grips one....rather, it is a morre methodical and thought out process. More of the battle plan one might put out on a chess board rather that the placement of such peices one might find on the battlefield. Now, having read the histories of such real-life explorers and commandants as Cochrane and Pellew (not to mention others, who gave far more), I fear that such biographies ARE boring and detailed, down to the last cup of flour, and I recommend them only as bedtime fodder. To have a ficticional account of a ficticional character compared to a ficticional acount of historical characters I find measly at best. At worst, I can only say that the historical characters led much less interesting lives. If I wanted to embroil myself in the mundane and the historical, rather than the fantastic, I would not be reading fiction. Peace, Caliann Operated by the Grand Poohbah Cheese of the Universe Ken Koester <kkoester at email.ers.usda.gov> wrote: Casey Rousseau wrote: > >... To which Howard Brazee (howard at brazee.net) replied: > > >>It appears that "better" in this context means "more detailed >>descriptions", which I take to mean technical descriptions. >> >> > > > To which I would take exception again. I can follow the working of a ship in Forrester, but I've never been able to in O'Brian. >I was, perhaps, a bit sloppy in my comparisons. I thoroughly enjoyed >the entire Hornblower saga, but they are light, romantic, and have a >tendency toward the episodic. > >In contrast, my recollection of O'Brian is of a much richer and >detailed world populated by real human beings with real joys, sorrows, >victories and failings. > > > But a world in which I find the characters totally implausible and in which the joys, sorrow, victories & failings bore me the 3 times I've tried to enter it. Hornblower, in contrast, is heavily modelled on the real life exploits of Pellew & Cochrane. >I admit, I was also leaning fairly heavily on the knowledge that Steve >has several times listed O'Brian as one of his favorite authors. :) > > > Chacun a son chat ;-) Snarkhunter "Offense theives. -- they take it when it isn't offered." --Tom Digby --------------------------------- Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Yahoo! Earth Day