Is it just me...

...or does the entirety of RFC's body work suggest an entertaining yet thorough exploration of morality?

The Honorverse in following Harrington we the reader focus on the individuals responsibility to be moral. We meet many people with different views of and sources for morality.

The Empire series explore the nature of evil. Some of this occurs in his stand alones like Armageddon Troll and the Star Fire series dealing with the buggs.

Safehold deals religion and the individual's responsibility within religion.

War God deals with how morality relates to the cosmos at large.

Now, we have a sequel to Out of the Dark. I suspect we shall witness some exploration of salvation and what it means to be a moral being.

I am interested in seeing where David will take that series. So far the stories are very deep and follow a morally consistent pattern. Not surprised in the least. the very pleasant part is that RFC has been so entertaining while maintaining that consistency.

Hi PeterZ,
I assume (often incorrectly) that all fiction is meant to be entertaining, and most fiction, even genre fiction, has elements of morality. Even if it is just good guys vs. bad guys. So it is not "just" you. But it is not just David Weber either.

The only fiction I read is science fiction and crime fiction, with the odd suspense novel by the likes of Harlan Coben or Thomas Perry. And my list of readable SF and crime writers is rather short, even if my bookshelves are way too full. Anyway, I find that most really good crime fiction contains excellent in-depth character analysis (as well as really good mise en scene) and most really good SF tends to be a morality play with occasional good character analysis (e.g., Laura Reeve, Lois Bujold). What distinguishes David Weber's work (except for the one member of the Gang of Four in the Safehold series) is that his bad guys all have redeeming qualities, or else they are stupid, while his good guys are beyond human in their goodness, bravery and willingness to sacrifice all for the group.

As for the place of religion in his stories, implied or, as in Safehold, up front, that is his own personal "stuff", as is the redemption that his antagonists experience--unless they just experience a bullet. That is what hell is for.

Finally I should say that I fear death itself less than I fear dying before reading the end of Harrington Saga or the defeat of the Gbaba. Or Theo gets lifemated.
Cheers
r

Hi PeterZ

I think Mr Weber would make a good religious leader/preacher.

He may even BE one in his spare time (WHAT spare time?) !!

But my, am I ever pleased that he is also a story teller.

R

PeterZ wrote:...or does the entirety of RFC's body work suggest an entertaining yet thorough exploration of morality?

The Honorverse in following Harrington we the reader focus on the individuals responsibility to be moral. We meet many people with different views of and sources for morality.

The Empire series explore the nature of evil. Some of this occurs in his stand alones like Armageddon Troll and the Star Fire series dealing with the buggs.

Safehold deals religion and the individual's responsibility within religion.

War God deals with how morality relates to the cosmos at large.

Now, we have a sequel to Out of the Dark. I suspect we shall witness some exploration of salvation and what it means to be a moral being.

I am interested in seeing where David will take that series. So far the stories are very deep and follow a morally consistent pattern. Not surprised in the least. the very pleasant part is that RFC has been so entertaining while maintaining that consistency.

That's an interesting question, PeterZ.

I don't know MWW personally, so I can't make any kind of comment on him directly. However, in thinking about your point - and having read most of his books - it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that he intentionally put those kind of points into his books - just to make people think a little more than they might have previously. Even if it isn't intentional, it sure seems that it is a large part of his subconcious!

Either way, I love his books, his writing style, and look forward to many more wonderful novels in the future!

PeterZ

As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about what I read in context with what happens in life, I've found a great deal to chew over in Mr. Weber's books. I found your breakout to be a relatively accurate one, and whether or not Mr. Weber intended it that way, that's just how it may have happened.
Considering the depth of thought Mr. Weber puts into his stories for us to read, I have my suspiscions on how 'accidental' the exploration of morality in his series is.
On the other hand, one of my other favorite author's does something similar in their books.
Then again, the concept of an individuals responsibility to stand up against those who would abuse their God-given right of Free Will appeals to me. And both Mr. Weber and my other favorite use such themes often.
Or so it seems, to me, at least.

kbus888 wrote:Hi PeterZ

I think Mr Weber would make a good religious leader/preacher.

He may even BE one in his spare time (WHAT spare time?) !!

But my, am I ever pleased that he is also a story teller.

R

PeterZ wrote:...or does the entirety of RFC's body work suggest an entertaining yet thorough exploration of morality?

The Honorverse in following Harrington we the reader focus on the individuals responsibility to be moral. We meet many people with different views of and sources for morality.

The Empire series explore the nature of evil. Some of this occurs in his stand alones like Armageddon Troll and the Star Fire series dealing with the buggs.

Safehold deals religion and the individual's responsibility within religion.

War God deals with how morality relates to the cosmos at large.

Now, we have a sequel to Out of the Dark. I suspect we shall witness some exploration of salvation and what it means to be a moral being.

I am interested in seeing where David will take that series. So far the stories are very deep and follow a morally consistent pattern. Not surprised in the least. the very pleasant part is that RFC has been so entertaining while maintaining that consistency.

Mr Weber IS a lay pastor (or however they refer to it in his denomination), and it is one of his dearest and proudest accomplishments outside his work. I HAVE met him, several times. This always comes up in discussions of the roots of his work, and he gives it great credit, and gives the portrayal of organized religion in speculative fiction deep consideration. The Church of God Awaiting, and the Church of the Testor, and even the gods of the world of War God's Own are not accidents; they have probably recieved the most sober thought of anything in David's books.

dreamrider

Hi again, Peter
Again you make good points and present ideas to ponder.

rfc deals not just with morality, but immorality, as well. Sometimes the bad guys are so bad that one wonders how they managed to live past childhood.

Another point is honor. Some of the bad guys are really quite honorable. They are loyal and patriotic, they are imbued with a fine sense of justice and you think you would like to meet them. And sometimes they are just trying to do something to get out of a hole they have dug for themselves. Just the wrong something.

David Weber does use religion to make certain points, but he doesn't really have to. Morality and good and evil all exist aside from religion and don't even need to be defined in religious terms.

There is one "good guy" person in the Honorverse whose actions often seem bewildering to me. I am referring to Terekhov, who we know to be ruthless and also a good person. War is, of course, mostly immoral. But it requires a soldier to be ruthless in treating with the enemy. I can understand an Abagail Hearns meeting the Test much more easily than I can understand Terekhov being perfectly willing to blow up a space station full of non-combatants. And I do not really know why I can't understand it--I am just grateful that it is not a choice I will ever need to make.

IMO, he also shows something else in his universe as well that many writers dont: He humanizes the enemy and shows that while from the main viewpoint they are in the wrong, some characters on the bad side are actually good guys, and on the good guys side there are bad guys. This by itself makes him a better writer then many. So many write sides as black versus white, but DW shows it as tainted white versus lightened black, with splotches throughout.

Hi Spacekiwi

I read this somewhere (NOTHING I know is in any way original !!!)


"There's so much bad in the best of us
and so much good in he worst of us
that it ill behoves any of us
to find fault with the rest of us"

R
.

Spacekiwi wrote:IMO, he also shows something else in his universe as well that many writers dont: He humanizes the enemy and shows that while from the main viewpoint they are in the wrong, some characters on the bad side are actually good guys, and on the good guys side there are bad guys. This by itself makes him a better writer then many. So many write sides as black versus white, but DW shows it as tainted white versus lightened black, with splotches throughout.

Those who fight for an evil cause do not lack in courage or honor themselves.
Those who fight for a good cause have no monopoly on courage or honor.
These two statements above are often ignored by most. There have been many bad causes in history served by men of courage and often honor. Yet, there have been many cowards and disreputable characters who have fought on the side of good causes.
And it depends on your definitions of what is evil and what is good.