Spoilers Honor Harrington and Other Space Opera Book Series

[Scepticalscribe]

Spoiler for @Scepticalscribe to be aware of. Can you resist?

Alas, no.

That sort of resistance is not my strong point.

Why should that be annoying? Rhetorical.

Because I don't much like Hamish (especially as a potential partner for Honor), and this strikes me as a sort of overkill.

Why, even the treecat (Samantha), despite the fact that she was already traumatised by the loss of her previous person (Harold Tschu), loves him (Hamish), and thinks him worthy of an intense bond - which seems to me to be an attempt to persuade the reader of his suitability for Honor, because we trust the integrity (and accuracy) of the emotions of the tree cats. If the tree cats approve, the reader is invited to be guided, or persuaded, by their judgment (which is excellent on character and emotional matters) and therefore, readers are invited to accept this relationship because the tree cats do.

Moreover, I think that the tree cat - that is, Samantha - by bonding with him (bearing in mind, firstly, that she is already paired with Nimitz, - and cats who are paired rarely bond - and secondly, that her previous person (Harold Tschu) had died, tragically and traumatically - and tree cats rarely form fresh bonds with humans if their person has died, or has been killed, as was the case here - and, as the text made abundantly clear) is a sort of signal that one is meant to approve whole-heartedly of this relationship.

When one adds to that the fact that her paired partner (Nimitz) is already bonded with (or to) Honor, you get, what seems to me, to be an exceptionally heavy handed signal that one is supposed to approve of this putative relationship, (Hamish and Honor) because all of the possible loose ends have been neatly knotted and tied tightly together.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

As I said, I understood the situation and within the book and those involved it makes sense. But there is something in me that does not agree with it. It's not something that for myself I would condone or engage in. I am not saying it's wrong in their context, it's just not something I could agree to in my own life.

Agreed.

Personally, I don't like polygamy, and don't much care for cultures that practice it.

However, while I get what the author is trying to do - and yes, Honor will be playing an equal role (rather than a subordinate role), I have a very strong sense that Hamish (talented and gifted and accomplished and aristocratic though he is) is a "want cake, have cake and eat cake" kind of dude/guy; he is not a guy that anyone says no to (about anything), - he is used to things going his way, and he is used to being right and he is used to to victories in life and love and war - this is the outcome he expects, one he knows will happen, one that is normal for him - and he is always taken aback, even stunned, when crossed, or when someone disagrees with him or disputes his interpretation of things.

Moreover, - and this really sets my teeth on edge - it is always, but always, about him: The vibe of "I hate to see you head off to battle because it really upsets me" is not quite the same as, "I'm concerned about you and worry about you when you head off to try to save the world (our world) in battle".

Having said that, they are terrific books, and I am thoroughly enjoying them.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

As some here know, I used to teach history (and indeed, politics).

My own area of interest was Soviet Russia (and the earlier Imperial Russia), and (among many other areas) I taught courses - my own courses - on Stalinism (and on 19th century and 20th century Russian history).

Anyway, that is by way of offering background, for, I love how life in the People's Republic of Haven is depicted in this series; this business of ideological compliance, internal compromises, ideological fervour - and indeed, fanaticism - political oversight of military matters, appalling purges, families threatened to ensure the compliance of the people who led the military, all ring very true to how life was lived and experienced at elite level in the USSR, and indeed, is also redolent of the fanatical fervour of the frenetic period in revolutionary France a few years before Napoleon (Bonaparte) declared himself First Consul in 1799.

For example, Polina Molotov, the wife of Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, who herself was Jewish (Stalin didn't much care for Jews), an accomplished and educated and forceful character in her own right, was incarcerated in one of the notorious gulags while her husband served as Foreign Minister. Molotov's first agonised request to his colleagues, (immediately) after Stalin's death, a request which could not have been made before the death of the dictator, was to ask (politely) that they "please release Polina", which then took place, and - only then - could have taken place. To his immense credit, he declined to divorce her while she was behind bars, although pressure was undoubtedly brought to bear on him, and it would have been advantageous for him to have done so. And so, they remained married until parted by death.

Anyway, the series is excellent - subtle, nuanced and psychologically insightful - when dealing with the Peeps; it conveys (superbly) the anguished world of conflicting and divided loyalties, the challenges facing exceptionally capable and competent officers who were motivated by patriotism yet knew (or came to realise) that they were serving a rotten regime, the utter uselessness of the (earlier) class ridden regime that had been overthrown (with good reason) by the revolutionaries, and the bitterness - or bitter sweet experience - of over-coming all of that.

It would have been easy - and lazy in terms of narrative - to portray the Peeps as cardboard cut-out (kind of "commie") villains, one dimensional in their satisfying expression of pure evil. But, to its credit, the series doesn't do that. Instead, it explores and attempts to explain Peep society, and offers thoughtful Peep characters, and attempts to sketch their motivations and inner world. (Warner Caslet, and Shannon Foraker are personal favourites, and I liked the evolution of the varied and impossibly complex relationships between some of the more gifted commanders - such as Thomas Thiesman, Lester Tourville, and Javier Giscard, and their - increasingly thoughtful - political commissars. Even Rob Pierre was given a credible backstory).

And, to my mind, one of the more impressive aspects of Honor Harrington - in terms of her character - is the professional, and thoroughly decent way with which she relates to - and treats - Peep commanders who have fallen into her hands; of course, that, in turn, influences how they come to view the war, and how they, come to engage with, think about, and interact with, not just the enemy, but, ultimately, their own government.

 

[eyoungren]

As some here know, I used to teach history (and indeed, politics).

My own area of interest was Soviet Russia (and the earlier Imperial Russia), and (among many other areas) I taught courses - my own courses - on Stalinism.

Anyway, that is by way of offering background, for, I love how life in the People's Republic of Haven is depicted in this series; this business of ideological compliance, internal compromises, ideological fervour - and indeed, fanaticism - political oversight of military matters, appalling purges, families threatened to ensure the compliance of the people who led the military, all ring very true to how life was lived and experienced at elite level in the USSR, and indeed, is also redolent of the fanatical fervour of the frenetic period in revolutionary France a few years before Napoleon (Bonaparte) declared himself First Consul in 1799.

For example, Polina, the wife of Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, who herself was Jewish (Stalin didn't much care for Jews), an accomplished and educated and forceful character in her own right, was incarcerated in one of the notorious gulags while her husband served as Foreign Minister. Molotov's first agonised request to his colleagues, (immediately) after Stalin's death, a request which could not have been made before the death of the dictator, was to ask that they "please release Polina", which then took place. To his immense credit, he declined to divorce her while she was behind bars.

Anyway, the series is excellent - subtle, nuanced and psychologically insightful - when dealing with the Peeps; it conveys (superbly) the anguished world of conflicting and divided loyalties, the challenges facing exceptionally capable and competent officers who were motivated by patriotism yet knew they were serving a rotten regime, the utter uselessness of the (earlier) class ridden regime that had been overthrown (with good reason) by the revolutionaries, and the bitterness - or bitter sweet experience - of over-coming all of that.

It would have been easy - and lazy in terms of narrative - to portray the Peeps as cardboard cut-out (kind of "commie") villains, one dimensional in their satisfying expression of pure evil. But, to its credit, the series doesn't do that. Instead, it explores and attempts to explain Peep society, and offers thoughtful Peep characters, and attempts to sketch their motivations and inner world. (Warner Caslet, and Shannon Foraker are personal favourites, and I liked the evolution of the varied and impossibly complex relationships between some of the more gifted commanders - such as Thomas Thiesman, Lester Tourville, and Javier Giscard, and their - increasingly thoughtful - political commissars. Even Rob Pierre was given a credible backstory).

And, to my mind, one of the more impressive aspects of Honor Harrington - in terms of her character - is the professional, and thoroughly decent way with which she relates to - and treats - Peep commanders who have fallen into her hands; of course, that, in turn, influences how they come to view the war, and how they, come to engage with, think about, and interact with, not just the enemy, but, ultimately, their own government.

There is one whose own personal code exceeds Honor Harrington. Look for him when the Protectorate of Grayson enters the story. Honor is kind of in awe of him.

As to your last para, to me, that is an example of Georg von Trapp. Yes, that von Trapp (as in the Sound of Music). He was a naval officer in the Austro-Hungarian navy and captained u-boats. There was more than one time after sinking a vessel that he surfaced to aid survivors.

 

[Huntn]

As I said, I understood the situation and within the book and those involved it makes sense. But there is something in me that does not agree with it. It's not something that for myself I would condone or engage in. I am not saying it's wrong in their context, it's just not something I could agree to in my own life.

Understood. Everyone who reads this story and objects to the morality of it, it’s just a philosophical exercise based on a plot. Don’t get me wrong, I am not being critical, just discussing a philosophical position.

I can’t say I would agree with it in my life either, until I was actually faced with it and reacted to it, the circumstances and the people involved. Until then, intellectually I’m projected into the story and under that context don’t give it a second thought.

Of possible interest for the readers who have read this story and object to the morality, or perceived lack of it, would it make any difference if Countess White Haven was physically normal and the 3 of them decided to have a plural marriage? I’ve always said what works, work. And while I’m not against it, I’ve always been sceptical of Mormon style plural marriage because it is unequal and all women involved are typically at a disadvantage. One husband, how about multiple husbands as portrayed in Paint Your Wagon?

 

[Huntn]

Alas, no.

That sort of resistance is not my strong point.

Because I don't much like Hamish (especially as a potential partner for Honor), and this strikes me as a sort of overkill.

Why, even the treecat (Samantha), despite the fact that she was already traumatised by the loss of her previous person (Harold Tschu), loves him (Hamish), and thinks him worthy of an intense bond - which seems to me to be an attempt to persuade the reader of his suitability for Honor, because we trust the integrity (and accuracy) of the emotions of the tree cats. If the tree cats approve, the reader is invited to be guided, or persuaded, by their judgment (which is excellent on character and emotional matters) and therefore, readers are invited to accept this relationship because the tree cats do.

Moreover, I think that the tree cat - that is, Samantha - by bonding with him (bearing in mind, firstly, that she is already paired with Nimitz, - and cats who are paired rarely bond - and secondly, that her previous person (Harold Tschu) had died, tragically and traumatically - and tree cats rarely form fresh bonds with humans if their person has died, or has been killed, as was the case here - and, as the text made abundantly clear) is a sort of signal that one is meant to approve whole-heartedly of this relationship.

When one adds to that the fact that her paired partner (Nimitz) is already bonded with (or to) Honor, you get, what seems to me, to be an exceptionally heavy handed signal that one is supposed to approve of this putative relationship, (Hamish and Honor) because all of the possible loose ends have been neatly knotted and tied tightly together.

Honor, Emily, and Hamish are good with it so who am I to complain? The key is I can accept the plot as not far fetched, strained, or morally repugnant (not an accusation). Hamish is ok too.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Understood. Everyone who reads this story and objects to the morality of it, it’s just a philosophical exercise based on a plot. Don’t get me wrong, I am not being critical, just discussing a philosophical position.

I can’t say I would agree with it in my life either, until I was actually faced with it and reacted to it, the circumstances and the people involved. Until then, intellectually I’m projected into the story and under that context don’t give it a second thought.

Of possible interest for the readers who have read this story and object to the morality, or perceived lack of it, would it make any difference if Countess White Haven was physically normal and the 3 of them decided to have a plural marriage? I’ve always said what works, work. And while I’m not against it, I’ve always been sceptical of Mormon style plural marriage because it is unequal and all women involved are typically at a disadvantage. One husband, how about multiple husbands as portrayed in Paint Your Wagon?

You make a fair point, one that also occurs - well, something somewhat similar, but not identical - with the last book (Gentleman Jole And The Red Queen) in the Vorkosigan saga, (by Lois McMaster Bujold), one where the focus (finally, and wonderfully) shifts back to Cordelia Naismith (the protagonist of the first two books), around forty five years after the start of the series, where, well, things (re relationships that develop) are so unexpected, that her son, Miles Vorkosigan, - the protagonist of many of the subsequent books (who, himself, had enjoyed a rich, intense, occasionally manipulative, and very varied love - or sex - life, prior to his own marriage) is hilariously outraged by what is happening in his mother's life.

There is one whose own personal code exceeds Honor Harrington. Look for him when the Protectorate of Grayson enters the story. Honor is kind of in awe of him.

As to your last para, to me, that is an example of Georg von Trapp. Yes, that von Trapp (as in the Sound of Music). He was a naval officer in the Austro-Hungarian navy and captained u-boats. There was more than one time after sinking a vessel that he surfaced to aid survivors.

I look forward to it.

Actually, I've read about Georg von Trapp; he seems to have been an extraordinary individual, a man of courage, ethics and integrity, (he loathed the Nazis, the movie wasn't wrong about that), decorated war hero, gifted musician, - his first wife was the British daughter of the inventor of the torpedo, and, as everyone knows, his second wife was the legendary Maria. And - looking at his photograph - he was outrageously handsome.

An excellent example of what we have been discussing, agreed.

 

[TPadden]

For a Space Opera with a different twist check out Ann Leckie's Ancillary series (Justice, Sword, and Mercy). She takes gender confusion to space with artificial intelligence slaved to a human body using gender neutral pronouns. Somewhat confusing at first, when I kept trying to put characters in their binary box...

I enjoyed the series...

Tom

 

[Huntn]

Reference Honor Harrington Series, @Scepticalscribe said:
I have read that the 14th book has been published - in the last few years - and that this is supposed to be the conclusion of the series.

Personally, I think that the books - following the conclusion of the war between Haven and Manticore - were poor.

And I also think that David Weber didn't have the courage of his convictions, firstly, re the (absolutely appalling second) romance - I've commented on this before, but I really think that it is execrable at every level, and worse, it is a cop-out - (besides, I loathe Hamish), and secondly, re not killing - or, refusing to kill Honor Harrington, which - apparently - he had intended to do at some stage, but audience demand (and, I suspect, demands from his publishers) ensured that this didn't happen.

Moreover, I remind myself that he was writing for a mainly US audience, after all, and such an audience may not have an appetite for a hero, or heroine, or protagonist, with the sort of irregular private life that Lord Nelson had.

If you are basing your character - even loosely - on Lord Nelson, (losing an eye and losing an arm and all) - you need to bear in mind, that - firstly, remember, that he did die - or rather, he was killed - at Trafalgar, and secondly, his private life was quite scandalous.
———————————-

There is a good chance that I will revisit the series. I don’t remember Hamish considering killing the heroine, maybe I did not get that far in the series. What I always thought was weak about the series, was the romantic aspects of it, this was not Weber’s forte, he had no interest or could even not come up with a threesome scenario.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

There is a good chance that I will revisit the series. I don’t remember Hamish considering killing the heroine, maybe I did not get that far in the series. What I always thought was weak about the series, was the romantic aspects of it, this was not Weber’s forte, he had no interest or could even not come up with a threesome scenario.

The threesome scenario was nonsense, and was a real cop-out; it wasn't even credible. Actually, all of the romantic aspects of the series were execrable, and should - and could - have been excised.

I suspect that David Weber was afraid of audience reaction (negative) if Hamish was sordidly unfaithful (which would have been the realistic if unpleasant scenario), or if Honor allowed herself to have a relationship with a married man - against his wife's wishes, and a wife who was crippled at that - he decided that he could not have his heroes - or heroine - appear to be less than perfect.

So, they weren't messily human, or even, believably human.

Weber tried to construct a sort of wholesome threesome which was not just not credible, but which I found nauseating.

To my mind, that is a consequence of a lingering Puritan influence in the culture.

If you are doing the Nelson homage, do it realistically, or, at least, plausibly; in reality, Nelson's private life was - even by the rakish standards of the time - extraordinarily irregular.

He had a wife whom he had abandoned and treated quite poorly; his lover - Lady Hamilton - had, in turn, left her husband to be with him; when he wasn't at sea, they lived openly together and had a child (who was named Horatia).

Moreover, - and I do suspect that there was an element of rebellion, or repudiation of the values Nelson had been brought up with - remember, Nelson's father was a clergyman - a respectable rector.

No, Hamish never considered killing the heroine; I'm sorry if that was what you thought I had meant.

Rather, I should have made clear that David Weber - in some interviews - had said (following the Nelson life trajectory, and the fact that he had based the series - to some extent - on Nelson's career) that - at one stage (actually, two stages) he had contemplated killing off Honor Harrington, presumably by giving her a glorious death in battle.

 

[Huntn]

The threesome scenario was nonsense, and was a real cop-out; it wasn't even credible. Actually, all of the romantic aspects of the series were execrable, and should - and could - have been excised.

I suspect that David Weber was afraid of audience reaction (negative) if Hamish was sordidly unfaithful (which would have been the realistic if unpleasant scenario), or if Honor allowed herself to have a relationship with a married man - against his wife's wishes, and a wife who was crippled at that - he decided that he could not have his heros - or heroine - appear to be less than perfect.

So, they weren't messily human, or even, believably human.

Weber tried to construct a sort of wholesome threesome which was not just not credible, but which I found nauseating.

To my mind, that is a consequence of a lingering Puritan influence in the culture.

If you are doing the Nelson homage, do it realistically, or, at least, plausibly; in reality, Nelson's private life was - even by the rakish standards of the time - extraordinarily irregular.

He had a wife whom he had abandoned and treated quite poorly; his lover - Lady Hamilton - had, in turn, left her husband to be with him; when he wasn't at sea, they lived openly together and had a child (who was named Horatia).

Moreover, - and I do suspect that there was an element of rebellion, or repudiation of the values Nelson had been brought up with - remember, Nelson's father was a clergyman - a respectable rector.

No, Hamish never considered killing the heroine; I'm sorry if that was what you thought I had meant.

Rather, I shoudl have made clear that David Weber - in some interviews - had said (following the Nelson life trajectory, and the fact that he had based the series - to some extent - on Nelson's career) that - at one stage (actaully, two stages) he had contemplated killing off Honor Harrington, presumably by giving her a glorious death in battle.

I’m not in my normal environment (that’s my excuse ), visiting and traveling, I now see what you said.

 

[eyoungren]

The threesome scenario was nonsense, and was a real cop-out; it wasn't even credible. Actually, all of the romantic aspects of the series were execrable, and should - and could - have been excised.

I suspect that David Weber was afraid of audience reaction (negative) if Hamish was sordidly unfaithful (which would have been the realistic if unpleasant scenario), or if Honor allowed herself to have a relationship with a married man - against his wife's wishes, and a wife who was crippled at that - he decided that he could not have his heros - or heroine - appear to be less than perfect.

So, they weren't messily human, or even, believably human.

Weber tried to construct a sort of wholesome threesome which was not just not credible, but which I found nauseating.

To my mind, that is a consequence of a lingering Puritan influence in the culture.

If you are doing the Nelson homage, do it realistically, or, at least, plausibly; in reality, Nelson's private life was - even by the rakish standards of the time - extraordinarily irregular.

He had a wife whom he had abandoned and treated quite poorly; his lover - Lady Hamilton - had, in turn, left her husband to be with him; when he wasn't at sea, they lived openly together and had a child (who was named Horatia).

Moreover, - and I do suspect that there was an element of rebellion, or repudiation of the values Nelson had been brought up with - remember, Nelson's father was a clergyman - a respectable rector.

No, Hamish never considered killing the heroine; I'm sorry if that was what you thought I had meant.

Rather, I shoudl have made clear that David Weber - in some interviews - had said (following the Nelson life trajectory, and the fact that he had based the series - to some extent - on Nelson's career) that - at one stage (actaully, two stages) he had contemplated killing off Honor Harrington, presumably by giving her a glorious death in battle.

I never really bought the romance either, although my thoughts about it are not as strong as yours. Primarily I saw it as a distraction. By this point Weber has long established that Honor is a flawed human being and that she has no love life, particularly after the death of Paul Tankersley.

I don't believe the introduction of this was necessary as I didn't really see it in her character. But I ultimately ignored it. And I ignored it because the 99% of everything else good about Honor is why I was reading the series. It was that stuff that originally attracted me and that I was still interested in reading.

Unfortunately around that point, Weber took a different tack and the Honor Harrington books began to be about other characters. Which is fine, I liked a lot of those characters. But they weren't Honor Harrington, the entire point of why I was reading the books. I want to read about her, not her friends, associates or acquaintances.

So, I stopped reading.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Again, I agree with @eyoungren.

I didn't think it credible, or necessary.

Actually, for Honor to have had no relationship, or a flawed one - as she was so focussed on her career - would have made more sense (and been more realistic).

I've already mentioned Samantha bonding with Hamish, which really nauseated me (and irked me, as well, for the reasons I alluded to in my earlier post).

For some genuine narrative tension - even if the stakes would not have been large - not least because Hamish is a guy/dude for whom many things in life seem to fall into place all too easily, what he wants he gets, people want to please him and fall into place with his plans - I would have preferred a version of the plot where one could see Samantha bond with Emily instead of with Hamish; now, that would have given the narrative a subtle piquancy, and challenged the characters, - and asked questions of them as to how they would deal with this, for it couldn't be undone - without sacrificing the wider narrative integrity - or arc - of the story.

 

[Huntn]

Someone said they did not like Honor Harrington, because basically Weber was writing a man’s role labeled as a woman. I’m not critical of the comment, but I‘ve had no problem viewing the character as a woman, a strong woman. I’ve always liked strong women leads in stories, except Captain Janeway who was too good being masculine.

 

[eyoungren]

Someone said they did not like Honor Harrington, because basically Weber was writing a man’s role labeled as a woman. I’m not critical of the comment, but I‘ve had no problem viewing the character as a woman, a strong woman. I’ve always liked strong women leads in stories, except Captain Janeway who was too good being masculine.

A great part of why I liked Honor Harrington is for the same reason as you - I've always liked strong women leads.

That perhaps goes back to being six years old in 1977 and seeing Princess Leia for the first time ever. It's something I've gravitated to ever since.

PS, since you mentioned Janeway - I'm a big fan of Captain Rachel Garrett.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Someone said they did not like Honor Harrington, because basically Weber was writing a man’s role labeled as a woman. I’m not critical of the comment, but I‘ve had no problem viewing the character as a woman, a strong woman. I’ve always liked strong women leads in stories, except Captain Janeway who was too good being masculine.

As a woman, I thought the personal relationships of the Honor Harrington of the earlier books were quite credible: Her trauma over the Pavel Young (privileged, incompetent, arrogant, entitled, a man without remorse rising without trace) sexual assault was very well done, and the penalties she faced for dealing with him, all that was very well done, and excellent story telling; her relationship with Paul Tankersley was perfectly fine, and believable and sweet and slightly awkward at times; her friendship with her Academy friend Mike was also something I always liked. Her relationships with her parents, they were well done, and very believable, also.

However, her relationship with Hamish - on so many levels - did not work at all; I really detested it, and think that Weber did not have the courage of his convictions, or was attempting to keep his heroes and heroines impossibly and implausibly perfect.

Besides, Hamish wouldn't have looked sideways at her until she had become wealthy and titled and successful (on Grayson) - prior to that, she wasn't good enough for him, not socially, not economically, not militarily.

Moreover, he wasn't the sort to have put anything of his own rank and position at risk when she was exiled, - he never lifted a finger for her - and even when he does feel attracted to her, it is still all about him, and his feelings.

The women in his (extraordinarily privileged) life are reduced to reassuring him. Ugh.

Had Samantha bonded with Emily, - the first time that something or someone had signalled a preference for the other person in the partnership - I would have loved to have seen his reaction, for Hamish is not used to coming second in any aspect of his life - professional, personal, social, political, economic....

 

[Scepticalscribe]

..... I’ve always liked strong women leads in stories, except Captain Janeway who was too good being masculine.

Actually, I must say that I rather liked Captain Janeway.

Bizarrely, and wonderfully, during an arts festival quite a few years ago, Kate Mulgrew strolled into my wine merchant's store, where the thrilled staff (who told me about it) recognised her and addressed her by her rank (she was chuffed and surprised to be recognised).

They told me that she was very pleasant and friendly and quiet and unassuming; others in the store - customers - hadn't recognised her, and very possibly had never even heard of her, or of Star Trek.

 

[Huntn]

As a woman, I thought the personal relationships of the Honor Harrington of the earlier books was quite credible: Her trauma over the Pavel Young (privileged, incompetent, arrogant, entitled) sexual assault was very well done, and the penalties she faced for dealing with him, all that was very well done; her relationship with Paul Tankersley was perfectly fine, and believable; her friendship with her Academy friend Mike was something I always liked. Her relationships with her parents, they were well done, also.

However, her relationship with Hamish - on so many levels - did not work at all; I really detested it, and think that Weber did not have the courage of his convictions, or was attempting to keep his heros and heroines impossibly and implausibly perfect.

Besides, Hamish wouldn't have looked sideways at her until she had become wealthy and titled and successful (on Grayson) - prior to that, she wasn't good enough for him, not socially, not economically, not militarily.

Moreover, he wasn't the sort to have put anything of his own rank and position at risk when she was exiled, - he never lifted a finger for her - and even when he does feel attracted to her, it is still all about him, and his feelings.

The women in his (extraordinarily privileged) life are reduced to reassuring him. Ugh.

Had Samantha bonded with Emily, - the first time that something or someone had signalled a preference for the other person in the partnership - I would have loved to have seen his reaction, for Hamish is not used to coming second in any aspect of his life - professional, personal, social, political, economic....

I never liked Hamish as Honor’s beau, he reminded me of her Father and I don’t remember anything romantic.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I have just been reading a - well, an exchange, a dialogue, a conversation - online (Google groups) with the wonderful title "Why I Hate Hamish Alexander (White Haven)", written by a man (who calls himself Alex) who himself has a wife who was badly injured in an automobile accident.

A fascinating read, and one with which I find myself in agreement.

As I'm still reading it, I'll comment on it later.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I never liked Hamish as Honor’s beau, he reminded me of her Father and I don’t remember anything romantic.

Actually, I do not understand why Honor - someone such as Honor - would find Hamish attractive, - to my mind, he is a selfish man and a bit of a cad - or would fall for such a self-centred individual.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Alas, no.

That sort of resistance is not my strong point.

Because I don't much like Hamish (especially as a potential partner for Honor), and this strikes me as a sort of overkill.

Why, even the treecat (Samantha), despite the fact that she was already traumatised by the loss of her previous person (Harold Tschu), loves him (Hamish), and thinks him worthy of an intense bond - which seems to me to be an attempt to persuade the reader of his suitability for Honor, because we trust the integrity (and accuracy) of the emotions of the tree cats. If the tree cats approve, the reader is invited to be guided, or persuaded, by their judgment (which is excellent on character and emotional matters) and therefore, readers are invited to accept this relationship because the tree cats do.

Moreover, I think that the tree cat - that is, Samantha - by bonding with him (bearing in mind, firstly, that she is already paired with Nimitz, - and cats who are paired rarely bond - and secondly, that her previous person (Harold Tschu) had died, tragically and traumatically - and tree cats rarely form fresh bonds with humans if their person has died, or has been killed, as was the case here - and, as the text made abundantly clear) is a sort of signal that one is meant to approve whole-heartedly of this relationship.

When one adds to that the fact that her paired partner (Nimitz) is already bonded with (or to) Honor, you get, what seems to me, to be an exceptionally heavy handed signal that one is supposed to approve of this putative relationship, (Hamish and Honor) because all of the possible loose ends have been neatly knotted and tied tightly together.

Well said. I don’t like that particular story arc in the series.

 

[diggy33]

For a Space Opera with a different twist check out Ann Leckie's Ancillary series (Justice, Sword, and Mercy). She takes gender confusion to space with artificial intelligence slaved to a human body using gender neutral pronouns. Somewhat confusing at first, when I kept trying to put characters in their binary box...

I enjoyed the series...

Tom

My wife loves this series and has been trying to get me to read it.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

On the topic of Honor and Hamish, I have been thinking about why I dislike this relationship so much:

For, my reactions were visceral, and my dislike of Hamish - the character - intense.

As I wrote earlier, I think that the role of the tree cats (Samantha - Nimitz's mate - bonding with Hamish, was to persuade the reader to accept this relationship because the tree cats did); what an abuse of the role of tree cats, and I loved the tree cats.

For one thing, I don't like his self-absorption, his selfishness, and the way he treats his wife; nor do I like the fact that he did not remain faithful to her, yet was not prepared to have the courage of his convictions.

I also dislike that - almost half a century after her accident - his thoughts are still all about how this has affected him, rather than the devastation it has wrought on Emily's life.

Above all, I dislike the fact that he pursued Honor, while still married.

Moreover, I am at a complete loss to see what she may have seen in him, or any reason why she - a supposedly good judge of character - should (eventually) return his regard.

And, of course, I am stupefied (given that tree cats are supposed to be excellent at judging character) that Samantha bonded with Hamish (she should have bonded with Emily, to my mind, that would have made a far better story), or that Nimitz did not signal disapproval of Hamish, for what Hamish thinks of is how the world and its problems have an impact on Hamish, and Hamish's life.

To those who say that "Emily was okay with it", I would pose the following questions and comments: Hamish shouldn't have sought it.

(And no, I don't think that she was 'okay' with it; remember, she had been an excellent - and famous, and successful - actress; it must have torn her internally, but it was the price of salvaging some semblance of squaring corners in her marriage by facilitating the sex life of her husband with a woman he had fallen for. Nobody is "okay" with such a thing; they tolerate it, even if it breaks their hearts, for they know that it may serve to make someone they love feel better).

Now, questions, just to show, to signal, to demonstrate, this from a different perspective: Does anyone think for a minute that a Hamish who had been injured catastrophically, as a result of an accident, would have been happy for his (healthy, thriving, successful) wife to have had a ménage à trois, that he would have wished them well, and cheered this along?

For that matter, does anyone seriously think that a different ménage à trois, one where another theoretical gentleman, in addition to himself, had married Honor - in other words, a world where Honor had two (willing) husbands - would have gone down well with White Haven? No, I don't think so.

I don't like how White Haven (Hamish) thinks of his wife - and the nouns cripple and invalid turn up too often for comfort, words that Honor has never used about Emily, either to her face or when thinking about her; again, as always, it is all about his feelings, his heartbreak, his inconvenience.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Emily's injuries as a result of her accident was the first time that White Haven had experienced a setback - or tragedy - in his entire life, and nothing in his background, his character or his life - where everything had fallen right for him, where if he wanted or wished something, he obtained it, a life which was successful on every level - had equipped him with being able to deal with tragedy and trauma.

I'm not saying that Hamish was evil - of course not: just that he was an enormously privileged, and extraordinarily selfish and astronomically self-absorbed individual, - it is always all about him, his feelings, his reactions, his guilt - and, as such, he is not an appropriate partner for Honor, who is someone whom the story had established as a moral, ethical, thoughtful and supremely courageous character, and a gifted and charismatic military leader.

The contrast with how Honor addresses and treats Emily - with courtesy, respect and a recognition of who she is, as a woman, a thinking person, (because physical injury does not mean that the person is mentally impaired, and the narrative makes abundantly clear that Emily is an exceptionally sharp individual and an excellent political analyst, just as she had been an outstanding actress) an individual, a wife - with how Hamish thinks of her - and this is almost half a century after her accident, denial and selfishness still loom large in his life - is quite striking.

Now, I spent some time yesterday (and the night before) trawling around a few sites dedicated to the Honorverse, partly to see if my own strong views on the relationship with Hamish (which really interfered with my enjoyment of the books - I thought the first seven excellent, and eight and nine pretty good).

A few quotes from a couple of sites (dedicated to the Honorverse universe), which raise (and articulate and express some of my own thoughts and concerns better than I did):

A chap named Alex wrote: (in a compelling original post, on a fascinating thread entitled "Why I Hate Hamish Alexander"):

"Why do I hate Hamish Alexander? What could this enormously cool
Manticoran naval admiral have done to me?
Well, basically, I hate him because he's portrayed as a hero.
Personally, I think he's a piss-poor excuse for a man."

Alex writes (in detail) about his own wife, who suffered horrific injuries as a result of a traumatic accident, his own life and their subsequent life together, (hence, he has first hand experience of a similar subject matter), and writes about Hamish, informed by his own experiences:

"So why does Nimitz tolerate him being in the same room as his person?
Why does Samantha bond with him? How can he possibly be the kind of
guy Honor can love?
Has the world gone mad?"

(These are my very questions also).

I have bolded some comments/observations that I think are especially relevant to this discussion.


In the same thread, Louann Miller wrote:

"The thing about Hamish, I think, is that he's not the central
character. He isn't, or at the time he was created wasn't, important
enough to Weber to write him as if he were the hero of his own story
in Hamish's own eyes. Instead the way he's written is totally
subservient to two primary writing objectives:

1. Honor shall duplicate the career of Horatio Nelson in all major
points.

2. Honor shall have all (or almost all) virtues not only as a fighting
'sailor' but as a human being.

At first, there was no sweat in reconciling these two objectives. It's
no problem to have Honor lose an arm and eye, acquire a foreign title,
and shoot up the ladder of rank powered by a string of brilliant
victories. If the parallels continue that far, it will be no problem
to have Honor die gloriously at the moment of victory. Where we're
hitting a problem is in duplicating Nelson's open and notorious affair
with a married (member of opposite sex) while keeping Honor in
character."

continuing with:


"Nelson (in his private life) was a
swaggering git who could never get enough flattery. Lady Hamilton had
all the turns of personality generally attributed to Yoko Ono. And
Lord Hamilton, who was living with his wife and her boyfriend pretty
much the whole time, was a brainless old panderer.

Honor is too well established as a character to suddenly acquire
Nelson's personal flaws. And the Hamiltons, er, White Havens can't be
nearly as twisted as their historical models. Honor is not only too
Nice to be nasty, she's too Nice to fall in love with a guy who's
nasty. Her established personality by then includes being a sterling
judge of character. So Weber somehow has to set Honor up for an
adulterous affair with a guy who _isn't_ a rat bastard and who somehow
_does_ deserve her.

Emily's troubles are meant to be the reason why an adulterous White
Haven isn't a bad guy, a kinder gentler alternative to the classic "my
wife doesn't understand me" or to simply not caring what his wife
thinks. But as Alex points out in searing detail, the more you know
about living with actual paralyzing injuries, the less this works.

The kindest (and in my guesses, the most accurate) way to read this is
that Hamish simply fails to be a three-dimensional character. It's not
that Weber failed to research and realize that Hamish and Emily could
get sexual release. That enforced celibacy is the _point_ of Hamish's
marriage, the thing that forces him in the direction the plot needs
him to go. His function in the story is not to be the best man and the
best husband he can. His function is to hit that predetermined point
in the plot so Honor can have Nelson's affair without Nelson's
character failings. In the latest book, Emily flowers as a
three-dimensional woman who wouldn't just sit home being sexless and
understanding. Unfortunately it's too late. Her job in the plot line
is to not have sex, and no number of real-world people who have
managed exactly that in the face of such injuries is going to change
that now."

 

[eyoungren]

On the topic of Honor and Hamish, I have been thinking about why I dislike this relationship so much:

For, my reactions were visceral, and my dislike of Hamish - the character - intense.

As I wrote earlier, I think that the role of the tree cats (Samantha - Nimitz's mate - bonding with Hamish, was to persuade the reader to accept this relationship because the tree cats did); what an abuse of the role of tree cats, and I loved the tree cats.

For one thing, I don't like his self-absorption, his selfishness, and the way he treats his wife; nor do I like the fact that he did not remain faithful to her, yet was not prepared to have the courage of his convictions.

I also dislike that - almost half a century after her accident - his thoughts are still all about how this has affected him, rather than the devastation it has wrought on Emily's life.

Above all, I dislike the fact that he pursued Honor, while still married.

Moreover, I am at a complete loss to see what she may have seen in him, or any reason why she - a supposedly good judge of character - should (eventually) return his regard.

And, of course, I am stupefied (given that tree cats are supposed to be excellent at judging character) that Samantha bonded with Hamish (she should have bonded with Emily, to my mind, that would have made a far better story), or that Nimitz did not signal disapproval of Hamish, for Hamish thinks of how the world and its problems have an impact on Hamish.

To those who say that "Emily was okay with it", I would pose the following questions and comments: Hamish shouldn't have sought it.

(And no, I don't think that she was 'okay' with it; remember, she had been an excellent - and famous, and successful - actress; it must have torn her internally, but it was the price of salvaging some semblance of squaring corners in her marriage by facilitating the sex life of her husband with a woman he had fallen for. Nobody is "okay" with such a thing; they tolerate it, even if it breaks their hearts, for they know that it may serve to make soemone they love feel better).

Now, questions, just to show, to signal, to demonstrate, this from a different perspective: Does anyone think for a minute that a Hamish who had been injured catastrophically, as a result of an accident, would have been happy for his (healthy, thriving, successful) wife to have had a ménage à trois, that he would have wished them well, and cheered this along?

For that matter, does anyone seriously think that a different ménage à trois, one where another theoretical gentleman, in addition to himself, had married Honor - in other words, a world where Honor had two (willing) husbands - would have gone down well with White Haven? No, I don't think so.

I don't like how White Haven (Hamish) thinks of his wife - and the nouns cripple and invalid turn up too often for comfort, words that Honor has never used about Emily, either to her face or when thinking about her; again, as always, it is all about his feelings, his heartbreak, his inconvenience.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Emily's injuries asa result of her accident was the first time that White Haven had experienced a setback - or tragedy - in his entire life, and nothing in his background, his character or his life - where everything had fallen right for him, where if he wanted or wished something, he obtained it, a life which was successful on every level - had equipped him with being able to deal with tragedy and trauma.

I'm not saying that Hamish was evil - of course not: just that he was an enormously privileged, and extraordinarily selfish and astronomically self-absorbed individual, - it is always all about him, his feelings, his reactions, his guilt - and, as such, not an appropriate partner for Honor, whom the story had established as a moral, ethical, thoughtful and supremely courageous character, and gifted and charasmatic military leader.

The contrast with how Honor addresses and treats Emily - with courtesy, respect and a recognition of who she is, as a woman, a thinking person, (because physical injury does not mean that the person is mentally impaired, and the narrative makes abundantly clear that Emily is an exceptionally sharp individual and an excellent political analyst, just as she had been an outstanding actress) an individual, a wife - with how Hamish thinks of her - and this is almost half a century after her accident, denial and selfishness still loom large in his life.

Now, I spent some time yesterday (and the night before) trawling around a few sites dedicated to the Honorverse, partly to see if my own strong views on the relationship with Hamish (which really interfered with my enjoyment of the books - I thought the first seven excellent, and eight and nine pretty good).

A few quotes from a couple of sites (dedicated to the Honorverse universe):

A chap named Alex wrote: (in a compelling original post, on a fascinating thread entitled "Why I Hate Hamish Alexander"):

"Why do I hate Hamish Alexander? What could this enormously cool
Manticoran naval admiral have done to me?
Well, basically, I hate him because he's portrayed as a hero.
Personally, I think he's a piss-poor excuse for a man."

Alex writes (in detail) about his own wife, who suffered horrific injuries as a result of a traumatic accident, his own life and their subsequent life together, (hence, he has first hand experience of a similar subject matter), and writes about Hamish, informed by his own experiences:

"So why does Nimitz tolerate him being in the same room as his person?
Why does Samantha bond with him? How can he possibly be the kind of
guy Honor can love?
Has the world gone mad?"

(These are my very questions also).


In the same thread, Louann Miller wrote:

"The thing about Hamish, I think, is that he's not the central
character. He isn't, or at the time he was created wasn't, important
enough to Weber to write him as if he were the hero of his own story
in Hamish's own eyes. Instead the way he's written is totally
subservient to two primary writing objectives:

1. Honor shall duplicate the career of Horatio Nelson in all major
points.

2. Honor shall have all (or almost all) virtues not only as a fighting
'sailor' but as a human being.

At first, there was no sweat in reconciling these two objectives. It's
no problem to have Honor lose an arm and eye, acquire a foreign title,
and shoot up the ladder of rank powered by a string of brilliant
victories. If the parallels continue that far, it will be no problem
to have Honor die gloriously at the moment of victory. Where we're
hitting a problem is in duplicating Nelson's open and notorious affair
with a married (member of opposite sex) while keeping Honor in
character."

continuing with:


"Nelson (in his private life) was a
swaggering git who could never get enough flattery. Lady Hamilton had
all the turns of personality generally attributed to Yoko Ono. And
Lord Hamilton, who was living with his wife and her boyfriend pretty
much the whole time, was a brainless old panderer.

Honor is too well established as a character to suddenly acquire
Nelson's personal flaws. And the Hamiltons, er, White Havens can't be
nearly as twisted as their historical models. Honor is not only too
Nice to be nasty, she's too Nice to fall in love with a guy who's
nasty. Her established personality by then includes being a sterling
judge of character. So Weber somehow has to set Honor up for an
adulterous affair with a guy who _isn't_ a rat bastard and who somehow
_does_ deserve her.

Emily's troubles are meant to be the reason why an adulterous White
Haven isn't a bad guy, a kinder gentler alternative to the classic "my
wife doesn't understand me" or to simply not caring what his wife
thinks. But as Alex points out in searing detail, the more you know
about living with actual paralyzing injuries, the less this works.

The kindest (and in my guesses, the most accurate) way to read this is
that Hamish simply fails to be a three-dimensional character. It's not
that Weber failed to research and realize that Hamish and Emily could
get sexual release. That enforced celibacy is the _point_ of Hamish's
marriage, the thing that forces him in the direction the plot needs
him to go. His function in the story is not to be the best man and the
best husband he can. His function is to hit that predetermined point
in the plot so Honor can have Nelson's affair without Nelson's
character failings. In the latest book, Emily flowers as a
three-dimensional woman who wouldn't just sit home being sexless and
understanding. Unfortunately it's too late. Her job in the plot line
is to not have sex, and no number of real-world people who have
managed exactly that in the face of such injuries is going to change
that now."

I think, at a certain point, David Weber's own viewpoints and beliefs infiltrate his writing. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if you aren't careful in recognizing it you can betray your characters by writing situations that are out of character for them.

I play roleplaying games and part of the allure of that is that you take on a character (like an actor does) and your actions are largely determined by how that character would react or act. Acting out of character, usually in line with your own thoughts, beliefs and prejudices, can take away from the game and ultimately reveals just how poor of a gamer you are. No one should be playing RPGs just to be 'themselves'.

I bring that up because this to me is akin to writing. You have to write in the character's voice and be honest and true to what that character would or would not do. In not doing this, David Weber has at times confirmed to me certain beliefs I have about him. I won't get into those here as the political forum on MR was closed and this isn't the place.

However, I would suggest that you use Google to take a closer look at the creation of the Star Kingdom of Manticore. Who were the founders and what decisions did they make? What were the founding beliefs and what did David Weber ascribe to them as a people?

It's not a leap from there to determine certain things about David Weber. This is not to say he is a bad person, I am not implying that. But our own beliefs often influence what we put down on paper.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I think, at a certain point, David Weber's own viewpoints and beliefs infiltrate his writing. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if you aren't careful in recognizing it you can betray your characters by writing situations that are out of character for them.

I play roleplaying games and part of the allure of that is that you take on a character (like an actor does) and your actions are largely determined by how that character would react or act. Acting out of character, usually in line with your own thoughts, beliefs and prejudices, can take away from the game and ultimately reveals just how poor of a gamer you are. No one should be playing RPGs just to be 'themselves'.

I bring that up because this to me is akin to writing. You have to write in the character's voice and be honest and true to what that character would or would not do. In not doing this, David Weber has at times confirmed to me certain beliefs I have about him. I won't get into those here as the political forum on MR was closed and this isn't the place.

However, I would suggest that you use Google to take a closer look at the creation of the Star Kingdom of Manticore. Who were the founders and what decisions did they make? What were the founding beliefs and what did David Weber ascribe to them as a people?

It's not a leap from there to determine certain things about David Weber. This is not to say he is a bad person, I am not implying that. But our own beliefs often influence what we put down on paper.

Excellent post, and you make some very good points.

I will take a closer look at both the Star Kingdom of Manticore, and about David Weber himself and what he may believe.

However, thinking about that (awful) relationship, - which really bothered me - and interfered with my enjoyment of the books, I think that it is out of character for Honor Harrington, as the character was (conceived) written until then.

She is a woman of competence, courage, intelligence and integrity, who is also a brilliant commander, and, I would argue, that this relationship is not just not right for her (because I cannot abide Hamish), but, it is also out of character for her.

Not only is she not a home wrecker (by temperament or preference), - the home wrecker is Hamish - but, she has standards, serious standards, both as an officer and as a person, that she has upheld until then.

Now, Nelson was an outstanding naval commander, but his private life was pretty unsavoury, and I really think that basing Honor (even loosely) on Nelson requires a change of character for her (which would mean that she would become less admirable, less heroic as a role model as a person, rather than as a military leader), or decoupling the history that happened from the narrative that one is trying to write, if one wishes Honor to remain in character yet be allowed to have some form - or vestige - of a romantic life.