HMS Surprise- The movie version

I've always made it a matter of policy to avoid disagreeing violently with, or criticizing the work of, other members of this Forum.  I don't think that's what it's for.  In this particular case, though, since the gentleman being quoted is not (I assume) a Forum member, I'll take the liberty of offering a personal observation.

I've reviewed a couple of Artesania Latina kits for publications (quite a few years ago, I admit), looked at some others in the boxes, and seen many photos of models built from them.  In my opinion, AL (known in Nautical Research Guild circles as "Artist in the Latrine") is one of the more objectionable of the HECEPOB (Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead) companies, about whom I've ranted at considerable length here and elsewhere.  It's unfair to generalize too much, but the AL products I've seen have been characterized by ineptly drawn plans, utter lack of research, mediocre materials, impractical construction methods, a general lack of interest in historical accuracy, and utterly outrageous prices.  If somebody from that firm has indeed paid a visit to the National Maritime Museum, that's good news.  Maybe somebody at AL has finally learned what the term "scale ship model" means.  I'll reserve judgment till I've seen the kit, but every other product from this source that I've seen has been just about useless for anything but firewood.

I've made the following point before, but I'll make it once more:  my disgust with the world of the HECEPOBs is not in any sense unique to me.  It's a common viewpoint among serious, experienced ship modelers.  If my comments seem harsh, take a look at this article:  http://www.naut-res-guild.org/piracy2.htm

Dr. McDonald wrote that article more than twenty years ago, but the situation hasn't changed much since then.

Maybe Artesania Latina is genuinely trying to turn over a new leaf.  (At least one other HECEPOB company, Amati, seems to be doing so; its new range of "Victory Models" appears to be excellent.)  I certainly hope so.  But I'll believe it when I see it.

This may be old news here, but this is from the latest HMS Rose newsletter:

 

Interested in model ships?  Newsletter Reader Mark Goodman sent this in:

   You might be interested to know that the Spanish company Artesania
   Latina (they make model wooden ship kits) is about to release a
   detailed model kit of the Surprise.  Apparently they have been
   working with the Greenwich Maritime Museum to produce it.  It will
   be released in Europe shortly.  Email them direct if you want more
   info.  I have already made two of their kits and they are
   excellent quality.

You can email them from this page:
at http://www.artesanialatina.net/contactar.php

and the chainplates in the picture certainly would be easier to reproduce.

I built one deadeye-strop-link-chainplate-backing link combination from brass wire, and shim stock.......there is a simpler, quicker way of doing this...I will find it !

Building the "movie version" has its benefits. There are some decent photos to work from, and, for the most part, dimensions are "computable", it just takes time. Needless to say, there's not much of the original "Jolly Roger" that is usable. The only things on the spar deck that came from the kit are the cannon, and one of the boats. Everything else had to be scratchbuilt to "best guess" measurements. Mostly, because of the difference in hulls, things have been built proportional to the kit hull, as opposed to being exactly scaled from the movie "surprise". I'll be very satisfied with a "good looking reasonable facsimile", of the compromise between the "Rose rebuild", and the "tank model".......besides, I'm having fun !!

The chainplate configuration in the picture obviously doesn't match what I described.  The builders of the Rose made lots of compromises due to financial pressures; this looks like one of them.  I suppose it's conceivable that the French made chainplates like that, but I've never seen such a configuration in any British (or American) plans or artwork of he period. 

If your target is to reproduce the ship in the movie, though, that's irrelevant - and the chainplates in the picture certainly would be easier to reproduce.

Excellent tutorial ! I never thought about the fact that when melted, small ammounts of material will form spheres. Cool ! www.fortogden.com/surprise-tumble-r.jpg  shows the chainplates on HMS Rose/Surprise.

Here's a trick for making cannonballs of any size you like.  It relies on trial and error, but doesn't take more than a few minutes. 

Chop a piece of brass wire into short, identical lengths.  (The exact length is what has to be determined by trial and error; it obviously depends on the diameter of the wire.)  When you've made a dozen or so little pieces of wire that way, spread them out on a fireproof surface (you probably have a soldering pad of some sort) and hit them with a torch.  In a few seconds the laws of physics will go to work; the brass will melt, and each length of wire will coagulate into a sphere.  Drop the spheres into chemical blackener, let them dry, shoot them with clear flat lacquer, and you've got your cannonballs.  Once you establish the initial measurement you can crank out a hundred of them in half an hour.

Chain plates are difficult.  Each assembly has to be of a different length, due to the changing angles of the shrouds.  In the early nineteenth century the chainplate assembly typically had four components:  the iron strop around the deadeye, two long, open iron links (the descendents of the actual chain that was used for the purpose in earlier centuries, and the backing link, an iron loop that was forged into a dumbbell-like shape and spiked into the hull at both ends.  The spike that went through the upper opening in the backing link also went through the lower end of the lower "chain" link, which was "pinched" together at that end to form an eye for the purpose.  In a warship with lots of shrouds, the aftermost chainplate assembly in a gang had to be considerably longer than the foremost one.  The discrepancy was taken up in two of the components:  the backing link and the upper "chain" link.  The lower links and the deadeye strops didn't vary.  On a good set of plans or a photo of the real thing, the points where the links overlap, and the upper and lower spikes in the backing links, form straight lines.

On small scales like this, making all those individual pieces would be quite a challenge. The appearance of the finished product can, however, be pretty effectively faked by using one piece of wire, or even smooth-surfaced thread, and a simple jig.  Drill holes in the channels for the deadeyes (or, if you really want to replicate prototype practice, cut notches for them in the edges of the channels and make a molding to close the notches and cover the edge).  Mark two lines on the hull below, and parallel to, the channel, to establish the heights of the two rows of spikes in the backing links.

The jig consists of a strip of  plastic sheet, about .020" thick and as wide as the opening in the upper link of the first chainplate assembly.  Start by twisting or knotting the wire or thread around the deadeye and passing both ends through the first hole in the channel.  Then make a half hitch in the wire or thread, at the point where the deadeye strop would hook into the upper "chain" link.  Hold the plastic strip there, and make another half hitch in the thread or wire just below it.  Drill the two holes in the hull for the backing link spikes.  Shove both ends of the wire or thread into the upper hole.  Make the backing link out of similar wire or thread.  Make the spikes from brass or steel pins, paying close attention to the diameter of the heads.  Shoving the pin into the hole on top of the wire or thread will hold the latter in place. 

As you make your way aft, the jig will ensure that the "joints" between the "links" (i.e., the half-hitches in the wire or thread) are lined up right.  When you're done, pull the plastic strip out and paint the whole business black.  (If you used thread, try mixing a little Elmer's glue in with the paint.) You'll find it's difficult to tell that the "chain plates" aren't made up of individual links.

That's the trick I used on my models of the Bounty (1/110 scale) and the Hancock  (1/128).  I don't think I'd recommend it on any larger scale than that, but on smaller scales the illusion is pretty effective. 

Disclaimer:  this post has been edited.  I initially typed it in a hurry, and realized later that I'd made some errors in it. 

Oh! It's 11. The first pic is an overhead shot of the spardeck:

 

The next, is a starboard side shot. This far along in construction, I realized that because I am not using the kit shrouds/deadeye assembly, I needed to remove the kit channels, and replace them. Not a wise thing to do with this much detail in place.

 

   Next is a closeup overhead of the quarterdeck: 

 

The cannonballs, are the smallest shot found in a .22 cal. birdshot round. They are still a little large, but about the same size as came with the kit. Last, the foredeck. There are two pinrails, in the bow, for spritsail, and jib lines.

      There's still all the pins to install in the fiferails, and pinrails to install at the bullwarks, along with any other eyebolts in the deck. I got some .015" X .024" flat brass bar stock, to make the through channel links between the deadeyes, and the chainplates. The chainplates are a rectagonal link made of round bar stock. I'll have to determine the size of these, and begin building them. I will probably use .012" brass wire for these.

OK, blocks are easy to build, even small enough for the training tackle for the spar deck cannon. Stropping them, and reaving them ? Hoo Hah ! With the right jig, probable. I'm 62, I don't think I have enough building years left, for that level of detail, so I'll be persuing the dabs of glue, and paint method. I am encouraged to build blocks for the general rigging, so I can maintain scale appropriate sizes. Some of the commercially available styrene rod can also be used for the smaller deadeyes. Again, with the right jigs, very probable. Everything is possible ( one chance in infinity is "possible" ), it's all a matter of probability.  Jose Gonzales's pictures  http://www.warshipmodels.com/~users/JoseGonzales  ( picture 277-picture 286 ) of HMS Rose/HMS Surprise are an excellent source of details. There is one area where little information exists. Fiferails ! there are no apparent sources for exactly how the fiferails are constructed. All the photos so far show the fiferails buried in line coils. Got some work to do, up in the bow. "pictures at 11".

There's nothing wrong with using glue blobs for blocks on small scales.  I'm pretty sure that's essentially how Donald McNarry does it - though he makes his rigging of wire rather than thread.  (He describes it as "glued up rather than rove in the usual manner.")

Try the brown version of Franklin Titebond - the stuff that's made for dark woods.  It dries in a hurry, and shrinks slightly when it dries.  Just before it hardens off completely, a little prodding with a toothpick will give it a thoroughly convincing block-like shape.  For best results, use enamel paint; acrylic may soften up the glue and put you back where you started. 

LHill,

Thanks for the link to jotika ltd. checked it out, smallest deadeyes are 2.5mm, very very close to 3/32", which I can get through my local hobby shop. I will keep jotika in mind though, for some of my other projects.

Jtilley,

  Of course I'll attempt to make the scale blocks before I use the knot/glue/paint method, but that is an option, and one I had considered.

   The new trucks for the carronades are about finished, and it's about time to sling some more paint.I'll post some pics after the painting is done.

Bluejacket's britannia metal deadeyes go down to 3/32".  Model Expo offers some nicely turned walnut ones; I'm never quite sure how these companies measure their fittings, but the smallest in that range is smaller than the smallest Bluejacket ones.  Model Expo sometimes sells them in bulk quantitities.

The two or three smallest sizes of blocks from Bluejacket are about right for a model on that scale.  The smallest ones - nominally 3/32" - are really tiny.  They take some time and effort to clean up; a knife-edged file is a big help in cleaning out the grooves.  It's also relatively easy to cut them down a little; chop off  1/32" or so from the long end and you've got a block that many observers will barely be able to see.  For anything smaller than that, you're probably better off with a knot covered with a drop of glue and painted.

Hope that helps.

Hey Sumpter,

 

You probably already know this, but try this place.  Its in England and sells some very small scale wood deadeyes and other things that might be of help.

http://www.jotika-ltd.com/Pages/1024768/Fitting_Front.htm

I don't know what the shipping is like to the US though.

  I got down to "the Ship Chandler", in Mt. Prospect Il. this afternoon, found some cast carronade barrels, that I can build trucks for. They are as close to 1/130 scale as I could find, so the only things I'll have to scratch are the two swivel guns. I'm working on finding some 3/32" deadeyes for the lower shrouds. Looks like I will still have to scratch the smaller ones for aloft, as well as most of the blocks.

Did the kit come with carronades?

Unfortunately, no. I'm going to have to scratch a set of four, two for the bow, and two for the forward part of the quarterdeck.

I very impressed with your craftmanship.  The model is looking very good.

Scott

Great work, Sumpter!

Thanks for sharing your photos. Did the kit come with carronades? They were often seen on the weather decks and quarterdecks of ships after 1805-ish.

Regards,

I finally decided not to add camber to the deck, I have to scratchbuild too much of the details, and with far more years behind, than I expect ahead, well, anyway. This is the spar deck, with some of the deck furniture placed where it will be attached after painting.

This one is the quarterdeck area.  , and this shows the new capstan, and wheel.  It's been fun with the deck furniture, as I've had to use what "known" measurements I could determine from the photos, and use them to "guess" the dimentions of all the parts I've had to build so far. I've exercised my Chopper extensively. The gratings are photoetched brass mesh, stk no.02714 from K&S Engineering. Evergreen strip, sheet, rod, and quarter round were used to fabricate the rest. The nine pounders on the quarterdeck, will be reworked to include tackle, and a repaint of the cannon to a more bronze color. The trucks will get new wheels, and quoins, for elevation adjust. I still need to build waterways, steps to the quarterdeck, pin rails (at the masts, and on the bulwarks), the binacle cabinets, and on, and on.  

   Been a while. My current projects are done, the interlocking tower, the brewery, and the N scale display are finished!!! July 5-10 I'll be involved with the NMRA convention in Philadelphia, at the GC Laser booth, and after I get home from the show, I plan to get back to work on "Surprise". Jtilley's comments on deck camber have me rethinking the deck. I could lay in deck beams, and plank the deck with either styrene strips, or wood strips, and aside from putting the camber in the deck , there are other advantages to using individual strips for planking. Mast partners can be worked into the framing, bitts, and fiferails can be anchored more firmly, and weathering of the deck can be more effective. The compound curves of sheer, and camber, are almost impossible to achieve with a single sheet of material, and they both are important elements in the appearance of the finished model.

You MUST read both 'Youth' and 'Typhoon'. Conrad is one of my all time favorites. What style!

But I must throw my oar in here and say that as much as I revelled in Hornblower in my youth, Aubrey/Maturin takes the bell for me now. I am happy to follow PO'B on whatever digression he chooses, it's all good. 150 word sentences don't faze me, mate, I've read Mervyn Peake's 'Gormenghast', where a sentence can consume the better part of a page (!).

The only time PO'B let me down was ( SPOILER ALERT   SPOILER ALERT) when he summarily and off-handedly killed off two important characters.

Tomorrow, I'm taking my annual "disappearing act" week off. Get in the car, choose a starting direction, and avoid interstate highways.....halfway through the week, I'll start heading back towards home, by a different route than the one that got me there. Greasy spoons, cheap motels and cheaper bars, and a lot of good solid "America".  If I find any bookstores on the way, I'll look for your recommendations.   Pete

Another great virtue of Conrad, from the purely practical standpoint, is that, because his works have long been out of copyright, paperback versions of them are cheap.  There's a wonderful paperback volume called The Portable Conrad (from Penguin Books, I think) that contains most of his major works between two covers.  It's undoubtedly more expensive than the $5.00 I paid for it thirty years ago, but still a huge bargain. 

The first Conrad book I read, back in high school, was The Nigger of the Narcissus.  I don't know that I'd recommend it for starters; it's a masterpiece, but loaded with symbols that literary theorists still argue about.  I think I'd recommend starting with the longish short story "Youth," then the short novel Typhoon.  I have that one in the form of an audiobook.  I listened to it in my workshop once, on a beautiful, clear evening in May.  By the time it was over I had to look out the window to convince myself it wasn't raining - or worse.

Another one that's worth reading is The Mirror of the Sea.  It doesn't get as much attention as some of Conrad's other works; it's sort of a casual anthology of stories and articles, some of them non-fiction, about various maritime-related subjects.  It's available in paperback, though somewhat harder to find than the more famous volumes.

Sumpter 250 - you owe it to yourself to try Joseph Conrad.  Of the nautical authors with whom I'm familiar, he ranks at the top.

Thankyou John, I will have to do that. I have found little to disagree with you on, so I look forward to what should prove excellent reading. Now let's see, library card.......oh yes, there, under that fifty pound pile of cob webs, along with most of my unbuilt kits.

Pete

jtilley wrote:

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of Tom Clancy.  I read The Hunt for Red October during a hospital stay, and it was just the thing to keep my mind occupied under some rather unpleasant circumstances.  And I rather enjoyed Red Storm Rising - especially the conclusion, wherein the Soviet military professionals are revealed to have a clearer understanding of the horrors of war than the politicians do.  But Clancy doesn't  belong in the same category as either Forester or O'Brian.

 

I agree with about that.  I have read all his Jack Ryan books, but they got to be so ridiculous that I just gave up on his ability to create a worthwhile story (Case in point:The Bear and The Dragon).  I did like Without Remorse and Clear and Present Danger though.  Rainbow 6 is also one of my favorites, if he ever picked up on writing a novel exclusively about the Rainbow 6 unit, I would pick that one up.  My dislike of Clancy however stems from a phone call when he was on some show and taking questions.  I had the (mis)pleasure of trying to get through for an hour to ask a simple question about his empire other than novels.  Well he didn't want to go in that direction and completely blew me off by just cutting the line with a "I don't know anything about that." 

I came to the conclusion that unless one has a military background or celebrity status, he doesn't want to give a fan the time of day.

Sumpter 250 - you owe it to yourself to try Joseph Conrad.  Of the nautical authors with whom I'm familiar, he ranks at the top.  Unfortunately for us, sea stories actually make up only a small portion of his output.  But the imagery in Typhoon, Youth, and The Nigger of the Narcissus is unforgettable - and I think any trained literature expert (which I'm not) would agree that they outclass any of the works we've been discussing in this thread.  I venture to predict that a hundred years from now, neither Forester, O'Brian, or Clancy will be on the required reading lists for graduate literature courses.  Conrad will. 

What makes Conrad's style especially remarkable - if not downright unbelievable - is that his native language was not English but Polish.  He adopted the English nation, and the British merchant marine, as his home in his adulthood; how he managed to acquire such an ear for the subtleties of his second language I can't imagine.  And he did it without writing 150-word sentences.

On the strength of that recommendation, I'll give Forester another try (or two).

Regards,

By the time O'Brian got halfway through the series he was an elderly man (he was 86 years old when he died, with the last novel in progress), with a massive following of worshipful groupies and a publisher who, presumably, was prepared to offer him an enormous cash advance for anything he wanted to write.  Under such circumstances it's certainly understandable that he indulged himself. 

 Lufbery - Flying Colours is probably my least-favorite of the Forester novels.  The plot and characters probably wouldn't have much appeal to anybody who hadn't read at least the preceding book in the series, Ship of the Line.  If I had to recommend one to start with, it probably would be Beat to Quarters (British title:  The Happy Return), the first one he wrote.  On the other hand, there's a great deal of pleasure to be gained by reading the books in "series order," in which case one would start with Mr. Midshipman Hornblower.  That one reads like a series of short stories (which is how it was originally published in the Post), but it's great fun and a fine introduction to the subject.  The second book in the series, Lieutenant Hornblower, is one of my very favorites.

One other big difference between Forester and O'Brian:  O'Brian was notoriously reclusive (to the point of inventing a past history for himself), and revealed scarcely anything about how he happened to write the books.  Forester, late in his life, published a book called The Hornblower Companion, in which he gave lots of interesting insights into how the mind of a novelist in those days worked.  (A childhood encounter with a family friend from the Continent who wrote the numeral 7 with a bar across it, for instance, led to an encounter with a French privateer in Hornblower and the Atropos.)  And he announced, with tongue firmly in cheek, that Hornblower was the first adulterer to appear in the pages of the Saturday Evening Post.   Apparently Commodore Hornblower's one-page rendezvous with the Russian countess caused something of a stir among the Post's editors.

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of Tom Clancy.  I read The Hunt for Red October during a hospital stay, and it was just the thing to keep my mind occupied under some rather unpleasant circumstances.  And I rather enjoyed Red Storm Rising - especially the conclusion, wherein the Soviet military professionals are revealed to have a clearer understanding of the horrors of war than the politicians do.  But Clancy doesn't  belong in the same category as either Forester or O'Brian.

jtilley wrote:

His books strike me largely as exercises in self-indulgence.  He gets an idea (about a character, an event, or some concept that seemd for some reason to appeal to him - like a man walking around in a bear skin, or a three-toed sloth getting drunk), and would spend page after page writing about it until he happened to get tired of it.  Then he would drop the subject and go on to something else.  Characters sometimes appear in and disappear from O'Brian novels almost arbitrarily.

O'Brian is a reflective observer, someone who fleshes out the world to the smallest details with reveries and elaborate, ruminating prose rather than leaving it a purposeful skeleton of single minded staccato sentences.   His caters to different tastes than that which would appreciate a Tom Clancy novel.

O'Brian clearly devoted more to the first 7 books than he did to the rest.    The first seven books seems individually planned, carefully paced, and meant to be able to stand alone.    From Ionian Command onwards, one could detect that less and less careful thought went into each books.   The books became increasingly just installments in a long running story that prepetuates itself heedless of the passage of time around it.  He was increasingly relying on his linguistic grace and knowledge of the times to churn out more books.   He became more willing to take digression (like the silly episold of Aubrey and Maturin falling overboard and being rescued by a Canoe full of Polynesian women) just to revel in how much of that world he knows.   By and large, even those books still stand high next to any sailing naval advantures ever written.    But the first 7 were clearly core of the series.

   The only authors, whose writings pertained to the sea, that I've read are Melville, and Robert Louis Stevenson. My love of the sea, and ships, has been with me since earliest memory. I learned to swim in the surf on the south shore of Long Island, and learned to sail in an eight foot yacht dinghy. I had the distinct pleasure of taking the helm of a 68 foot 77 ton coastal schooner, built in 1871 (and still sailing), and handling her sails (going out on the sprit footropes, and taking in the jib is still one of my favorite memories.....right up there with the look on that engineer's face when I started, and stopped his steam locomotive, after he'd challenged me to do so).  My twentyone years in the Navy were only natural for me, there was much about being at sea that was, for me, enjoyable. There's something to be said for standing on a 376' X 40', 2200 ton sliver of steel in the middle of the Atlantic, and watching "mountains" being thrown at you. The canopy of the heavens, threehundredsixty by onehundredeighty degrees, on an otherwise dark night, every star shining brightly and clearly. The tops of the waves, blown wavetop to wavetop, so that the sea looks flat, while beneath what the eyes see, the violence of a full blown Atlantic gale can only be felt in the pitching and rolling of the ship. In a full dark, overcast night, approaching, and steaming through a single vertical column of silver light made by the full moon shining through the only hole in the clouds. Even in the midst of the most violent and destructive force, the sea posseses a beauty that has to be experienced to be truly appreciated. Rarely have I read anything that conveys that overwhelming feeling, that "being there" can bring. A novelist's words, however finely crafted just don't quite compare to what I've experienced. Cinematography comes close. Master and Commander, as a motion picture, rekindled many of my memories of the sea. Yes, I could pick nits, but rather, I'll simply enjoy the positives, and forget that some of the nuances were not there. So it is, that the ship I know from the film, is the ship I'll build in miniature........too bad that so much cannot be "built", and has to be imagined by whoever should see the finished model.

I'm firmly one of the O'Brian camp. I truly enjoy his characterizations of the main characters in the books. I love how he handles their relationships, changes of fortunes, and foibles.

I read Forester's Flying Colours and agree with Mr. Tilley that it was well-written. My major problem was that I just didn't like Hornblower. His constant internal dialog and self-doubts got old pretty quickly. After a while, I started to hope that the French would find him and execute him PDQ.

Then the way the novel wrapped up the situation with Hornblower's wife, child, and lover left a very bad taste in my mouth. At least Aubrey suffers some nasty consequences when he strays.

Oh well, Amazon.com states that this is the "most introspective of the Hornblower novels." Maybe I picked the wrong book to introduce myself to the series.

The other thing that I like about the Aubrey/Maturin books is that they make me laugh out loud. Few novels do that for me.

Regards,

I respect O'Brian and I've enjoyed the five or six of his books that I've read.  I do not worship him the way some of his readers do.  He was an expert in the use of the language (on a certain level), and extremely knowledgeable about many, many aspects of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European history.  He also was a supreme egotist and an extreme eccentric.  His books strike me largely as exercises in self-indulgence.  He apparently would get an idea (about a character, an event, or some concept that for some reason to appealed to him - like a man walking around in a bear skin, or a three-toed sloth getting drunk), and would spend page after page writing about it until he happened to get tired of it.  Then he would drop the subject and go on to something else.  Characters sometimes appear in and disappear from O'Brian novels almost arbitrarily.

He also had a fascination for long-winded sentences.  I've counted the words in a few of them; the totals sometimes exceeed 150.  Apparently he had the notion that the "eighteenth-century cadence," as I've heard it called, was advanced by such linguistic monstrosities.  Maybe it was, in the hands of Jonathan Swift or Daniel Defoe.  O'Brian was neither.  To my ear his page-long sentences are nuisances.  If one of my students turned in such a thing I'd hand it back and tell him to start over.

On more than one occasion, though, I've been on the verge of tossing an O'Brian book aside when he's opened a new scene - a storm at sea, for example - that really grabs me with its eloquence.  There are some examples of outstanding literature in those books.  I just wish they weren't puncuated with so much ideosyncratic silliness.  Some of O'Brian's readers admire him so much that they're willing to go along for the ride wherever he takes them.  I just haven't been able to do that.  I'm sure his description of what it feels like to walk around for several days inside a bear skin is accurate, but I don't think that knowledge has added much to my life.

O'Brian was a good writer and an expert on his subject matter; his books certainly are worth reading.    But I just can't join those who worship him as a near-deity.  I've read repeatedly that comment from the New York Times critic who called the O'Brian books "the best historical novels ever written."  I have to wonder how many historical novels that critic had read.  Had he ever heard of Sir Walter Scott?  Or Arthur Conan Doyle?  Or Leo Tolstoy?  Or, for that matter, Charles Dickens? 

C.S. Forester lived in a different era, and had to appeal to a different audience.  (Most of the Hornblower books were first published as serials in the Saturday Evening Post. )  In my opinion Forester handled the English language far better than O'Brian did; you won't find 150-word sentences in any Forester book.  Forester also made his share of mistakes.  (The bomb ketches in Commodore Hornblower didn't resemble anything in use by the Royal Navy in 1812.)  Many of the books that O'Brian obviously consulted didn't exist in Forester's day.  But Forester knew how to develop characters, he knew how to construct a coherent plot (better than O'Brian did, in my opinion), and he knew how to tell a good story in a way that entertained his readers while simultaneously educating them.  And Forester never crammed two years' worth of events into one calendar year. 

I wouldn't want to label either of those authors "better" than the other overall; they represent extremely different, and, I suppose, legitimate approaches to the genre.