Submitted by ChickenDragon123 t3_10nnvtq in books
I want to preface this discussion with the understanding that I am a fan of David Weber's work. I was introduced to On Basilisk Station fresh out of college, and I've since read most of the work that takes place in that universe as well as a fair bit that takes place outside it. However, I took a break after a little while to read other authors and read different types of Sci-fi and Fantasy, including some of Weber's contemperaries like Eric Flint, only recently coming back to his work with Safehold, and I have to say I'm still a fan.
However, time and experience have granted me a greater understanding of Weber's flaws as a writer, and I have a better idea of where his critics are coming from. This is largely an attempt to focus my thoughts, and provoke some discussion (not to start at war about how David Weber is a bad writer or the best writer ever).
So where David Weber works best, is his Aspirational Heroes. For fans of the Dresden Files, imagine if the main character of that series were Michael, instead of Harry. All of Weber's main characters (at least the ones that he's written by himself) that I've read fall into that. They are Capital H Heroes. Their enemies are Capital V Villains. In fact I can comfortably say Weber's villains are a breath of fresh air in a world where every villain has to have a tragic backstory. I distinctly remember in one of the Honor Harrington books shouting "Oh you utter Bastards!" towards a group of villains that were discussing taxes. Yes, David Weber is a good enough author to make Space taxes and interesting and dramatic topic.
But in this strength is a flaw, and that flaw is simplified morality. In a David Weber work, you are either a Hero, a Villain, or a meatshield. Now, to be fair, you can be on any side and be a "good" person or a "bad" person. Manticore has as many bad people as Haven. But when the chips are down no one is ever allowed to be in the middle, unless they are dead.
Beyond that, many of these "Aspirational Heroes" come off as Mary Sue's because they lack any real character flaws, or at least the text encourages you to overlook them. Honor Harrington for example is shown to have a temper. In Field of Dishonor she is driven to murder (via legal duel) two people. Now that murder is somewhat justified within the text, the villain had harrassed Honor throughout the Navy and had her Fiance murdered in a duel, but it was without a doubt, Murder. There was no reluctance, no hesitation, she knew what the result would be, and she still committed the act. It was just socially acceptable and it wasn't treated by the text as a problem. Later in the series, she starts a relationship with an admiral that outranks her, at least at the time, while he is married. Instead of really exploring that issue, digging into the character flaws, because it is Honor, and because it's love, she enters into a three-way marriage with him. There is just never any long term internal struggle with a David Weber character.
Part of the reason this type of character appeals, is the themes of Duty and Patriotism loom large in Weber's work. A great many sins can be overlooked in the service of well, military service. This makes it appeal to service members, people like Police, Military, Doctors and Nurses, because the act of duty, erases the other sins to some extent. However, this is somewhat undercut but the realization that Honor is never required to actually do the wrong thing is she? She's never told to fire on civilians, she's never told to lie, to cheat, to steal. Sure, she's told to do things that are incompetent, but she's never ordered to do something morally wrong. She's never told to do something evil. There is always the understanding that the system she serves is a Good one even if there is incompetent or corrupt leadership within it.
Honor is often punished for success, but never for disobeying an unlawful order. Doing the right thing often costs her or her crew, but it rarely has a lasting effect. That carries over to the Safehold books as well (at least the first. I haven't read the others.) Merlin is fighting a corrupt system. Thus, whatever he does, is justified. He never hesitaties, never wrestles with the morality of a situation. He just trusts that what he's doing is the right thing. He murders, lies by ommision, steals, and does a hundred other immoral things, but he never once doubts.
In many ways Weber's approach to character is the opposite of someone like Brandon Sanderson. Take Kaladin for example. His internal depression is why we root for his external resilience. His flaw defines him, and the knife-edged struggle keeps us interested. Dalinar has a sordid past, and everything he does now, is an attempt at redemption. Redemption drives him and motivates him. Honor though never wrestles with Dishonor, at least not by the standards of the book. Her name defines her character. We never once see her stumble, never once see her fall. We never question if she's done the right thing.
This is partly down to focus. As much as Sanderson is concerned with never breaking his own rules, Weber is obsessive about the accuracy of his own. Missile arrival times will be calculated down to the second, logisitics have to make sense, the science has to be accurate in extreme detail. Sanderson can handwave to some extent, Weber can't. He's cultivated a fan base that will double check his math. For some people that is the juice. The vision of the future where we've reached the stars and the math makes sense. A sci-fi world where you can taste the verisimillitude appeals to a lot of people. Hell, it appeals to me.
I whole heartedly reccomend Weber's books to people that haven't read them. But I don't recommend all of them. The ideas once presented are facinating, until you've seen them for the hundredth time. That's probably the biggest problem I have with Weber. His series don't really end. I can wholeheartedly reccomend the first five Honor Harrington books. If you like them keep reading, there will always be more, but it may not get Better.
David Weber is one of my favorite authors, but I'd be lying if I said he was one of the best I've read. One of the best for his genre, absolutely. But his characters start to feel flat after a bit. And the idea that we can all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps doesn't seem as plausible as it once did. I think we need authors like Weber though. We need that aspiration. I just wish it were more nuanced. I wish the morality weren't quite so simple. I wish the internal struggles mirrored the external ones.
​
Thanks for reading. I hope to continue this conversation in the comments down below.
Quixventure t1_j69u6ac wrote
I’ve also read most of the Honorverse and and Safehold, and… I agree completely. Love his work, recommend it to others, but 20ish books in and you see a distinct pattern :)
To his credit though, very few SciFi authors can keep a coherent universe together like he can. Taxes, politics, technology and physics… it’s amazing.
But… When I need a breath of fresh air, I switch over to lois mcmaster bujold…