Re:Death before dis' Honor.
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 1
I think the biggest weakness in this and almost all the previous HH novels is that Weber seems unwilling to allow the characters to speak for themselves. Whereas Forrester developed his characters by demonstrating how they behaved and what they thought and felt, Weber merely gives voice to the inner monologues of his subjects, whether it bears on the action or not. My other gripe is the endless political exposition and pedantic level of detail that he lavishes on items that aren't relevant to the main story. In this regard, I think "Ashes of Victory" was the most tedious. Who cares about the Grayson's genetic history? What does it add to the main story? The answers are, respectively, Weber and nothing. As for "War of Honor," two things honked me off. First, the jaunty angle that the "of" sits at on the cover. Did the jacket designers think this was cool, or something? Also, by this point in the series the characterizations are getting too black and white for my taste. It's painfully obvious who we're supposed to love and hate, and it lends the book an air of unreality, as though we're watching a war between abstractions, not people.
Aside from this, I've enjoyed reading the entire series. Weber openly admits that his novels are inspired by the Hornblower saga, and for me, the science is detailed enough to make it entirely believable. The first few novels were by far the strongest (I think up to "In Enemy Hands"), but each has added something unique and interesting to the universe. If I could give Weber one peice of advice, it would be to re-read "Basilisk," and get back to that swashbuckling high-seas adventure style of narrative.
P.S. Naval warfare has been three dimensional since the invention of diesel submarines and naval aviation. Just a minor point.
Slashdot Mirror
from somewhere... oh yeah! That's clearly a lifted picture of the Shelby GR-1 concept car at the top of their "press release."
Here's a desktop version from Serious Wheels.com for you car nuts.
Laugh!
I think the biggest weakness in this and almost all the previous HH novels is that Weber seems unwilling to allow the characters to speak for themselves. Whereas Forrester developed his characters by demonstrating how they behaved and what they thought and felt, Weber merely gives voice to the inner monologues of his subjects, whether it bears on the action or not. My other gripe is the endless political exposition and pedantic level of detail that he lavishes on items that aren't relevant to the main story. In this regard, I think "Ashes of Victory" was the most tedious. Who cares about the Grayson's genetic history? What does it add to the main story? The answers are, respectively, Weber and nothing. As for "War of Honor," two things honked me off. First, the jaunty angle that the "of" sits at on the cover. Did the jacket designers think this was cool, or something? Also, by this point in the series the characterizations are getting too black and white for my taste. It's painfully obvious who we're supposed to love and hate, and it lends the book an air of unreality, as though we're watching a war between abstractions, not people. Aside from this, I've enjoyed reading the entire series. Weber openly admits that his novels are inspired by the Hornblower saga, and for me, the science is detailed enough to make it entirely believable. The first few novels were by far the strongest (I think up to "In Enemy Hands"), but each has added something unique and interesting to the universe. If I could give Weber one peice of advice, it would be to re-read "Basilisk," and get back to that swashbuckling high-seas adventure style of narrative. P.S. Naval warfare has been three dimensional since the invention of diesel submarines and naval aviation. Just a minor point.