Dragaera

The criticism of O'Brian

Matthew Jennings attjen at gwu.edu
Fri Apr 28 16:13:18 PDT 2006

"Except that Britain didn't use agents in this manner at this time--
this 
is a 20th century device.  The Admiralty gathered intelligence, all 
right, but that's what it was:  intelligence. .... I'm afraid I'd have 
to see an actual historical case before I could swallow this."

Hunh, you clearly have a very different impression of what Maturin was 
tasked to do.  

Here are the ones I can find quickly on wikipedia: propaganda in the 
Mauritius, oppose agents while in Boston (lucky coincidence, of 
course), "sent on a mission to the Baltic to persuade the Catalan 
garrison of the fortress at Grimsholm to defect", political duel for 
influence at the Sultan's court, south american mission to gain 
influence with cash & prizes*

Then there is whole aspect of Maturin only accepting missions he wants 
to, being a free agent against Bonaparte, being a well-known and 
respected naturalist (wanders widely from the ship), all-in-all, he's 
just not a full-time spy, and I don't see that he could be taken as 
being part of the normal 'intelligence' apparatus.  He's really just 
being a troublesome pest.

I guess part of the problem you have is that these missions are too 
complex for the Admiralty?  In which case, I'm content to give the 
benefit of the doubt (as in, how are we 'really sure' they didn't).  
(Even if we are really sure, we're talking about a series that 
admittedly extends a historical year to a sequence of events taking 
much longer. So absolute historical accuracy is already out the window.)

So, I guess all I'm saying, is it seems a harsh criticism, though of 
course different things work for different people.

I have a hard time accepting Matt Damon as a spy/assassin myself.

*okay, not prizes really