Talk:Clarissa Oakes

Move request

• Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. grendel|khan 21:25, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
• Neutral to Don't Move Some of O'Brian's titles require disambiguation and it seems reasonable to have a certain consistency in the page titles with the added (novel) after all of them. Given that I am not completely set on that. Dabbler 23:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

---

• Moved 7 May 2005 by ??? (doesn't show up in the history, but has been moved). —Slicing (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First edition cover is included, no need to flag it

There is a flag above saying the first edition cover image is needed. The image is part of the infobox in the article, so the flag could be removed. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is go and change the yes to no in the template and all will be fine. Dabbler (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know what to do. Glad you did it. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Marriage

Prairieplant, I think that this revert was made in error, but am happy to discuss further if you wish. On checking the text [page numbers from the HarperCollins paperback edition] it's clear that Oakes's choice is not by any means forced marriage or Norfolk Island. The very first time Aubrey broaches the issue with Oakes [p45] he says "have you considered what will become of her?". Oakes replies "If you would be so extremely kind as to marry us..", and Aubrey says "If she agrees, bring her back here and let me hear her confirm it; be damned to Hell if I allow any forced marriage on my ship". When Harville appears, there is this exchange [p46]: "Mr Oakes tells me that you might consent to marry him. May I take it that this is so...or does he flatter himself?" "No sir: I am quite ready to marry Mr Oakes" "Of your own free will?" "Yes sir". There was never a Norfolk Island 'option' since, well before that, Bonden had reported that it was impossible to land [p43]. O'Brian provides a clear hint to the reader [p42 & p43], but without making it explicit, that this report was what he wanted, and that he never had any intention of putting Oakes ashore. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, you know this book well! I saw two things going on with the term forced marriage. Aubrey did not want his officer to be forcing Oakes into marriage, as he brought her aboard the ship and hid her. On the other hand, Aubrey has his long dislike of women aboard ship for all the problems they cause, and wants the couple to be married. And on the third hand (my metaphor ran out), he really did not like having a stowaway, never known to him until they are far from New South Wales. He foresees trouble if she is not a married woman. Trouble happens anyway, but that comes later. He made the threat of Norfolk Island, in my view, to make it clear to them and all on the ship (I do not have the book with me so I cannot quote it as you have so nicely done) that he is serious about the marriage and best behavior. The threat is what he would really like to do, not to have a troublesome couple, meaning a troublesome woman, on the ship. Norfolk Island was a place where they could not survive, I believe, so it was a very serious threat to make. Having Bonden say (that is, O'Brian having Bonden say) there was no place to land allows everything to proceed smoothly after the marriage is agreed and Aubrey maintains his authority aboard the ship. It is rare that Aubrey cannot find a place to land, if he wants to get ashore, given all the boats he has and skill in navigating shoals, so having Bonden say what he did seemed to show that Bonden understood all the complexities of the situation and Aubrey's tricky position in front of officers and crew. Aubrey might have the authority to leave a man behind, and certainly a stowaway (I hope that is correct), but those who know him well would figure he would not do that if there was another option, both maintaining discipline and humane. This is how I read the plot, which is all the authority I have on my views. I do not want to argue about it if you really see it otherwise. Now to read your other note. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)