Spoilers Honor Harrington and Other Space Opera Book Series

[eyoungren]

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), it is also out of character for her.

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 heroic as a roel model as a person, rather than a military leader), or decoupling the histoyr that happened from the narrative that oen is trying to write, if one wishes Honor to remain in character yet be allowed to have some form of a romantic life.

If you look up Weber himself, one of the first things you will discover is that he is an ordained Methodist minister. I say this simply as a fact and not as approval or disapproval.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

If you look up Weber himself, one of the first things you will discover is that he is an ordained Methodist minister. I say this simply as a fact and not as approval or disapproval.

Fair enough.

However, I do think that he found himself in a narrative dilemma he couldn't reconcile by having Honor attempt to replicate - or reflect - Nelson's life without being the sort of person who had Nelson's character.

Quite apart from his irregular and unsavoury private life, the real Nelson enthusiastically approved of slavery, for example, - whereas Honor was always an ethical individual, who always sought to uphold her principles, (witness her exemplary treatment of Peep officers who fell into her hands), sometimes at the cost of her career (such as when she shot Pavel Young in a duel, a fate he richly deserved, which led to her exile, and this was also a time when none of the aristocrats in the government saw fit to support her, or to curb the power of aristocratic individuals such as Young, or to truly attempt to hold them to account).

I will say that I was heartened (both here, and elsewhere) by the fact that others shared my views on this relationship; it appalled me, actually.

It didn't ring true - for Honor's character - that she would return the regard of someone like Hamish, above all, in the circumstances of his life - but, even irrespective of circumstances - and I had to really think through why I disliked it so much.

Actually, I think that Weber let Honor down with that story.

 

[eyoungren]

Fair enough.

However, I do think that he found himself in a narrative dilemma he couldn't reconcile by having Honor attempt to replicate - or reflect - Nelson's life without being the sort of person who had Nelson's character.

Quite apart from his irregular and unsavoury private life, the real Nelson enthusiastically approved of slavery, for example, - whereas Honor was always an ethical individual, who always sought to uphold her principles, (witness her exemplary treatment of Peep officers who fell into her hands), sometimes at the cost of her career (such as when she shot Pavel Young in a duel, a fate he richly deserved, which led to her exile, and this was also a time when none of the aristocrats in the government saw fit to support her, or to curb the power of aristocratic individuals such as Young, or to truly attempt to hold them to account).

I will say that I was heartened (both here, and elsewhere) by the fact that others shared my views on this relationship; it appalled me, actually.

It didn't ring true - for Honor's character - that she would return the regard of someone like Hamish, above all, in the circumstances of his life - but, even irrespective of circumstances - and I had to really think through why I disliked it so much.

Actually, I think that Weber let Honor down with that story.

Don't misunderstand - I am not disagreeing. I'm just saying that if you understand certain things (as mentioned above) you can kind of get an idea of who David Weber is, his beliefs and how they permeate into the story.

In regards to Honor/Hamish, I'd just bring up what was mentioned before - that Honor was originally supposed to die. I would suspect that her moment of death would have been timed to avoid any deep dive into Nelson's character.

Weber is an arms/war/battle historian expert and I have no doubt that Nelson's war career appealed to him. 'Forced' to keep Harrington alive, he had a dilemma. I think there was a better solution, but he didn't take it. I just think that if you can extrapolate from what I mentioned earlier you might see the dichotomy of what I think is Weber's own personal beliefs that led to this. It's not really a good outlook on him I think.

Writers often reveal themselves through their writing.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Don't misunderstand - I am not disagreeing. I'm just saying that if you understand certain things (as mentioned above) you can kind of get an idea of who David Weber is, his beliefs and how they permeate into the story.

In regards to Honor/Hamish, I'd just bring up what was mentioned before - that Honor was originally supposed to die. I would suspect that her moment of death would have been timed to avoid any deep dive into Nelson's character.

Weber is an arms/war/battle historian expert and I have no doubt that Nelson's war career appealed to him. 'Forced' to keep Harrington alive, he had a dilemma. I think there was a better solution, but he didn't take it. I just think that if you can extrapolate from what I mentioned earlier you might see the dichotomy of what I think is Weber's own personal beliefs that led to this. It's not really a good outlook on him I think.

Yes, I have read that Weber had intended for her to die (following Nelson's trajectory) - (on, at least, two separate occasions) and, either, he didn't have the courage of his convictions, or else, he succumbed to pressure from fans and/or publishers by giving her a reprieve.

After all, she was a once in a lifetime character - a wildly successful one - that most authors can only dream of coming up with, and the books must have generated a decent income.

However, the Weber who could write such an impressive character as Honor - someone that many who read the series wished to emulate, (and some, as you have already mentioned, admired her to such an extent that children have been named for her) - and could write such fully realised, three dimensional Peep commanders - failed utterly when writing this relationship.

He failed Emily (who deserved far better), he failed Honor - nothing in her character portrayal suggests why she would consider Hamish attractive as a partner in life, a romantic partner, - and he failed the story, which had been brilliant until then, because he couldn't square narrative demands (be faithful to Nelson's life) with Honor's ethical and decent character.

Hence, the tree cats and Emily being twisted - pretzel like - into conferring approval on an appalling relationship.

 

[eyoungren]

Yes, I have read that Weber had intended for her to die (following Nelson's trajectory) - (on, at least, two separate occasions) and, either, he didn't have the courage of his convictions, or else, he succumbed to pressure from fans and/or publishers by giving her a reprieve.

After all, she was a once in a lifetime character - a wildly successful one - that most authors can only dream of coming up with, and the books must have generated a decent income.

However, the Weber who could write such an impressive character as Honor - someone that many who read the series wished to emulate, (and some, as you have already mentioned, admired her to such an extent that children have been named for her) - and could write such fully realised, three dimensional Peep commanders - failed utterly when writing this relationship.

He failed Emily (who deserved far better), he failed Honor - nothing in her character portrayal suggests why she would consider Hamish attractive as a partner in life, a romantic partner, - and he failed the story, which had been brilliant until then, because he couldn't square narrative demands (be faithful to Nelson's life) with Honor's ethical and decent character.

Hence, the tree cats and Emily being twisted - pretzel like - into conferring approval on an appalling relationship.

And again, it's this failure (each thing you mentioned) that tells me his beliefs/bias were what led to that. Or at least what I think his personal beliefs are based on what I have gleaned and some of my own experiences.

I agree it was a failure, but the why is more important to me to understand.

 

[Rafterman]

I love these names of characters. Reminds me of MST3K and joke names they gave actors: Clint Manbeef. Chuck Studbottom. Steve Hardjaw.