Just heard your review, enjoyed it greatly. Regarding your comment about Mary Sue character, I totally agree. That is the biggest reason I cant enjoy the name of the wind series that much, the main character just becomes so good at everything (including in academics, money making and sexual prowess), it just becomes so boring later on.

Also about your comment about rape in fiction, is it just me or are there so much rape in nowadays fiction which are described as either "dark" or "realistic". 90% of the rape I have read in fiction feel not required, they either serve to make the antagonist seem evil or to make the universe seem "gritty".

Anyways, love your podcast. Hope you read some books you enjoy during the holidays.

Whilst I agree with your review, I think you missed the point of the book. I can't imagine anyone reading the book seriously anymore than I can imagine someone living on Pop tarts. Escapist scifi is escapist. That said, really liked the rant!

Fred wrote: "Whilst I agree with your review, I think you missed the point of the book. I can't imagine anyone reading the book seriously anymore than I can imagine someone living on Pop tarts. Escapist scifi ..."

Fred, I'm not sure I understand you. How can I not read a book seriously if it is 400 pages and is, well, a book? I read every book the same, as though it is a book. Like, I have to read every word to read the book. How do I go about reading a book non-seriously?

Omg, I think I'm a nerd!

Fred wrote: "Whilst I agree with your review, I think you missed the point of the book. I can't imagine anyone reading the book seriously anymore than I can imagine someone living on Pop tarts. Escapist scifi ..."

Escapistic book should be entertaining and fun with a good guy to root for. That book is nothing like that, it is mainly boring infodumps with "the good guys" who are irritaiting and stupid idiots. By the end of book I for one was hoping for complete destruction of the Manticore kingdom.

Luke,
I am a big Honor Harrington fan and I was curious to see what you thought. To my surprise, you panned the book. Now I do have to admit that you had some good points. The characters are a little flat in this book (something that gets much better as the series goes on), and Honor is very much the perfect-at-everything character (and that flaw actually get much, much worse as the series goes on).

However some of the issues you raised concerning the story I don't think were valid. You mentioned over and over that Harrington was the only competent character. That is not the case. With the exception of Pavel Young and the Dr. Suchon (the lazy doctor) - the rest of the characters were very competent. Even McKeon - who had problems working with Honor - was described as being very competent in every other area. You even see him working well with other crew members. Actually one of my favorite parts of the book (and the series) is watching how young, inexperienced characters like Ensign Tremaine are brought along and turned into good officers.

One of the points you made was if Honor knew that Young was incompetent, and there was this big ship in orbit (which turned out to be the Q-ship)- why didn't she just go check it herself. As was explained in the book - she couldn't. Without cause she didn't have the legal right to re-inspect a ship. Honor has to follow inter-stellar law. You also mentioned that it made no sense that the cat was in a productive life support module, but the characters weren't wearing spacesuits. The problems is - they were wearing space suits, they simply call them skin suits.

You also disliked Nimitz - who is actually one of my favorite characters. Though I do have to admit he doesn't do much in this book - that changes later in the series. If you really want to see him in action, read the next book.

I also think you took the attempted attack/rape by Young on Harrington differently than I did. The whole thing wasn't to gain sympathy for Honor - after all she is the one that completely kicked Young's butt. It was there to show his character, as well as to explain the animosity between them. Saying that she beat him at soccer really wouldn't have had the same effect as him having tried do something that should have gotten him kicked out of academy.

As for the good guys killing the aliens - well, yes they did. But the aliens were in a drugged induced killing frenzy and they were heading for the human enclaves. This was done with little warning - so trying to evacuate the enclaves (with the limited number of ships that had been talked about before) wouldn't have been possible. So the choice was kill the drugged out aliens, or watch them kill the people you were sworn to protect. And this was after the attempt had first been made to protect the aliens from undo influence in the first place - though of course that effort failed. They weren't committing genocide - they were stopping would-be murderers. There is a difference.

As for nerds liking meritocracies - well, that may be true. But I would like to think most people like the idea that you get rewarded for being good at what you do - not just nerds. I'm going to guess that you like the idea that you get hired for jobs because of how well you juggle, not because of any other reason. So while Honor does get rewarded for her actions (and her competence) the book doesn't try to say that only the competent prosper. The fact Pavel Young was a captain, and kept that job despite of what happened was stated as being due to his family's influence.

Dobie.

"How do I go about reading a book non-seriously?"

With lowered expectations my friend.

Sometimes its just fun to imagine a world where to succeed you only need to really want to and your failures are because of everyone else's incompetence and luck is not important, where everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is an (american-style) liberal, coward butt head.

I originally meant to add that the rest of the series is basically a retelling of the same story over and over only less well written (or edited truth be told).

I kind of put these in the trough with EE Smith's Lensman series but without the sense of wonder.

I am guessing that you haven't read a lot of American military science fiction. It isn't intended to be good science fiction, it is intended to be escapist war-stories with a sci-fi flavour. They are supposed to be easy to read, simple to understand and geared towards juveniles (and people with a juvenile level of reading). That is why they are written the way they are. 13 year olds don't read Anathem, they read On Basilisk Station. The characters aren't supposed to be complicated, the writing isn't supposed to be challenging, the plot isn't supposed to be complex.

Within these constraints, it does what it does fairly well. That is why it has sold some very many copies and is rated as highly. If you are going to read mind candy of this type, you could do much, much worse (Death Troopers) than On Basilisk Station.

I am not surprised you panned it. It is all of the things you hate. I am not sure why you even bothered to read it. On the other hand, from the rating you gave it, I have to assume you haven't read many truly awful books. Compared to say Dennis L. McKiernan or Samuel Richardson, Weber reads like Greg Egan. Taste may be relative, but there are far worse books that On Basilisk Station.

As great an idea as the Baen Free Library is (and it is a fantastic, forward looking idea) most of what Baen publishes will be in the same vein. If you didn't like this, you most likely won't like the rest.

Dobie wrote: "Luke,
I am a big Honor Harrington fan and I was curious to see what you thought. To my surprise, you panned the book. Now I do have to admit that you had some good points. The characters are a li..."

Hi Dobie,

To address your points in general, I'm not going to accept excuses for this book based on the following novels. If a character isn't needed until a later book, I don't mind them being in this novel, but either make them as minor as possible (get them out of the way) or make them worth their time on the page (give them something important to do).

Also the specific plot holes and criticisms of the book are just examples of the many plot holes and flaws in this book. You addressing or explaining away or forgiving the few I mentioned in the podcast doesn't solve the main problem, namely that the whole thing is shoddily written.

To your specific points though:

Yes, other characters are competent too, but they are not battling other competent people, instead they are battling incompetence. I think in my Game of Thrones review I said "It's the age old story of evil versus stupid." The only reason the bad guys can get anywhere is the incompetence of the good guys. No matter if the crew are competent, how can I admire Honor Harrington if the people she goes up against are idiots who can only succeed against other idiots?

The suspect space ship didn't need boarding to check it out. Just a fly by. The crew might have been wearing skin suits but it mentions people dying because of decompression all the time. Also it mentions Honor sitting there with her helmet visor open, and having to close it. Why have it open?

I'll not bother addressing other points now. The book just isn't worth it.

Fred wrote: ""How do I go about reading a book non-seriously?"

With lowered expectations my friend. "

If I just want to turn off my brain and read about stupid action, I'll pick up a Peter F Hamilton book. Except stupid action comes with a shitload of FUN technobabble and characters rather than tedious. And it comes with battles over the fate of the galaxy, not over some trade dispute.

So thankfully there is enough good science fiction out there to not have to lower my expectations.

Luke wrote: "Fred wrote: ""How do I go about reading a book non-seriously?"

With lowered expectations my friend. "

If I just want to turn off my brain and read about stupid action, I'll pick up a Peter F Hamilton book. Except stupid action comes with a shitload of FUN technobabble and characters rather than tedious. And it comes with battles over the fate of the galaxy, not over some trade dispute."

But that's just it. The target audience of a book like On Basilisk Station (for the most part) isn't people who consider Peter F. Hamilton to be beach reading. There is a very lucrative market for Honor Harrington et al, an audience that is substantially larger than that of Hamilton's. The HH series isn't all that good, its peers fair no better but they make up the majority of the science fiction market in North America.

I don't know what big box bookstores are like in Europe, I haven't been there in several years, but I can tell you that in the US and Canada, the science fiction section is overwhelmed with Luke Skywalkers, Honor Harringtons, Drow Elves and Captain Picards.

All of this is aimed at the 10 to 18 year-old market, and a people who "like science fiction" (but have never really gotten past Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek etc) because these are the people who are buying lots of books. I am not arguing that this stuff is good because it's popular, I am arguing that it's popular because it's not Peter Hamilton, Neal Stephenson, Peter Watts and Ian M. Banks. The lowest common denominator in the science fiction field might be higher than the average, but it is still the lowest common denominator.

On Basilisk Station entertains its intended audience, and it does a pretty good job of it (which is why I rated it as average). You might think that the protagonist is a mary sue, but to a geeky 13 year-old girl whose peers are prettier and popular, Honor Harrington represents a very real and sympathetic character; someone who can inspire. Harrington doesn't have to be any deeper than she is because her audience doesn't need her to be.

We can all hope that that geeky 13 year-old's taste and interest in science fiction matures and she graduates onto better written books, but she isn't required to.

I also feel I need to point out that your rant about the "meritocracy" in OBS is not only wrong, but rather insulting. Had you paid a bit more attention instead of using every page to puff up your indignity, you would have seen that Harrington's world is anything but a meritocracy.

First, she is assigned to Basilisk Station because she is the worst kind of embarrassment: one that makes her superiors (including the social class ones) look bad. Second, her competency is rewarded only because of a patron in the military who sees her potential and the failings of the Navy, and a lucky confluence of tradition, law and exposure (granted this last is a bit deus ex machina.

I said that I found it insulting, and I did. Your ten minute blovation about nerds and meritocracy and sex was denigrating. You sounded like an arrogant, self-important, pretentious prat who believes that having sex with beautiful girls is an magnificent achievement to emulated and because you've had sex with beautiful girls you should be emulated too. This isn't the first time you've come across as egotistical snot trumpeting his, misplaced, sense of intelligence and importance. You might actually be a really great guy not at all like I've described, but this part of your podcast made you sound like a complete douche bag frat-boy.

If you want to be taken seriously, and I think that you are earnest and passionate about science fiction, you need to self-edit that kind of immature, ignorant and arrogant spew. You did yourself no favours.

Hey, Mr. Squid, take it easy.

First:

"I also feel I need to point out that your rant about the "meritocracy" in OBS is not only wrong, but rather insulting. Had you paid a bit more attention instead of using every page to puff up your indignity, you would have seen that Harrington's world is anything but a meritocracy. "

Maybe my point wasn't clear, but you've missed it entirely. I never said that Harrington's world is a meritocracy, in fact my point was that it was the total opposite. The fact that she succeeds on merit only AGAINST the non-meritocracy society is what appeals so much to the geeks and nerds who ALSO living in a non-meritocracy and feel they should succeed only on their own merit.

As for my ten minute blovation, I'm sorry if it puts you off. Unfortunately there is almost a one-to-one correlation between people who I know who are nerds who think they don't have to improve themselves personally, just be who they are and be good at what they do, and people who don't have girlfriends and never have sex. I'm not saying I'm amazing because I have a girlfriend, or that I've had sex in the past, I'm just saying I'm pretty normal. And I'm saying than when I read characters like Honor Harrington, I don't find them particularly interesting or someone to look up to. No, instead I see someone who is intelligent and capable, but lacking social intelligence and interpersonal skills.

"If you want to be taken seriously, and I think that you are earnest and passionate about science fiction, you need to self-edit that kind of immature, ignorant and arrogant spew. You did yourself no favours."

I'm not doing this podcast to be taken seriously, I do it because it's fun, and other people find it entertaining.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm not going to start self-editing. The more personal I am on my podcast, the better I feel it is, and the more feedback I get from people saying they like me bringing in my personal stories and experiences to the show. If my personality or experiences aren't to your taste, that's fine. I'm sure you can find a book review podcast by someone else who fits your view of a serious science fiction fan.

Catch you later,

Luke B.

good answer to mr squid. While I don't often give you feedback about your podcasts, I enjoy them and would be very disappointed if you changed the way you do them.

I agree with Larry. Whilst I like the first few of these, I am the first to admit that they are pot boilers of the first order. Of course I have no taste so it makes it difficult to condem anything. (except all of Robert Jordan and that ice and fire stuff bleck!!)

But hearing a strong opinion in the other direction is great because it helps me clarify my own thoughts and feelings. I'm not insulted that people find it dreadful. It is dreadful- more importantly, is my kind of dreadful, like Jackass or bad sitcoms.

As for the ten minute rant, I can't get all that worked up by it. As someone who could very well have ended up in my parent's basement, I can't say I thought it was that far off the mark. There is a shadowy world that those of us with OCD live in, where the darkness is always encroaching. It still baffles me how I ended up with a beautiful wife and two great, albeit challenging, kids. Like the man in a tuxedo on skies flying off a ski jump- "How did I get way up here?"

To sum: write what you think and I, for one, will continue to listen, sometimes agree, sometimes disagree but always with enjoyment and appreciation...

(BTW: Couldn't get through Hamilton's Pandora's Star- too boring as it was a story much better told in the original Mote in God's Eye in half the time. Are any of the others better? How about the Wildcard series? I just listened to the first volume that came out on Audible. I figure if you don't have a rant in you about homosexual necrophilia, you are just dead inside.)

It's been nine years since I read the book, so the details have been lost. It's OK as an airplane book when you don't want to watch the in flight movie, but it lacks true substance. I read a few more of the book while on travel, but then just got tired of the sameness, and found other mindless novels to fill the empty spaces. The Honor Harrington books need to be read with about as much expectation as a summer movie. There are just too many flaws otherwise.

If you attempt to read a book like On Basilisk Station or Daemon critically, then you'll probably ending up with the reviewer going an rant like Luke. It's not wrong to read airplane novels critically, but the review should be consistent. Luke, however, gave a easy pass on the The Hunger Games which, by all rights, should have been obliterated in a serious review.

Anyway, I enjoyed the rant. Now if only he'll read some of Kevin J. Anderson's Saga of the Seven Suns we might really hear some good tirades.

Greg wrote: "It's not wrong to read airplane novels critically, but the review should be consistent. Luke, however, gave a easy pass on the The Hunger Games which, by all rights, should have been obliterated in a serious review."

The Hunger Games is indeed an airplane book, and I think I was pretty consistent in my review. The difference between The Hunger Games and On Basilisk Station and Daemon is that while all were full of plot holes and stupid, stupid action, I enjoyed reading (or in this case, listening to) The Hunger Games. Kids killing each other to survive in a brutal TV reality show is not original, but it resonated with me waaaaay more than space battles that, if the battle DIDN'T happen, the outcome would be BETTER for EVERYONE.

my impression from the review was that the most damning element was the fact that nothing happened, and that the entire book was filled with expository conversations. never mind about the flat characters or the meritocracy stuff, that is what made me put it into my "pass" pile for now.

Boy did you pick the wrong David Weber book to read.

Holding this book up as an example of Military Science fiction is like holding the Twilight series up as a representative of Fantasy books. It spends so much time in other genres that the military SF portion of the book is skeletal and undeveloped. As you point out in your review the reasons for the conflict, and the morality of the actions taken are completely skipped over in attempt to create the points about gender equality and meritocracy.

You should have read one of the Starfire books instead.