David Weber's Honor Harrington Series - Exposition Much?

I’ve picked up David Weber’s Honor Harrington Series again, after many years. This is a series (and an author) that I followed avidly for years and have reread again and again; one of my comfort reads, in fact. Paradoxically, I’ve also consistently skipped parts of his books again and again, to the point of never having read most of Short, Victorious War. I read him for his characters (which, even if many of them are not particularly well-rounded, are appealing), the action (which is well-written and exciting), and the good vs. evil (which is comforting, especially as the world around me seems to develop more shades of gray). What I don’t read him for is his plentiful exposition, which would be the parts I have habitually skipped. He has a lot to say about politics, military technology, and character motivations, much of which I find uninteresting, excessive, and/or redundant (this last would apply to the character motivations). The good news is that the action and character interactions still work even if you skip ahead, brother.

 This time around I’m actually reading much more of the exposition. I still don’t have a lot of interest in the military hardware aspects, but the politics are more interesting, if a little slow going. I’m not sure how much of my new-found patience has to do with my being more politically aware these days versus the politics in the later books of the series being much more integrated into a story containing less action. I’m still not committed to reading every page, but I’m getting a depth to the stories that I didn’t before.

 The sheer tonnage of exposition in Weber’s books is also interesting because that’s typically seen as a no-no in fiction writing. Yet he was (is?) a very popular military SF author, so it apparently works for him. Is it that he’s managed to pick topics such that his lengthy ruminations become part of the attraction? Or is it that you can actually skip them and still enjoy the books, a la Victor Hugo. (Not that Weber’s writing skills are nearly to that level.) Regardless of my altered reading habits this time around, I think I’m still in the latter camp.

The Eye of the Reader

I'm fascinated by the different ways people read science fiction. I'm working on Susan Matthews for Novelist, and am checking out "Colony Fleet." The Amazon reviews are all over the place.

One reviewer compares it to Matthew's Judiciary series, and gives it 3 stars because it seems simplistic in comparison, but still worth reading.

Another reviewer, who worked for the aerospace industry for 20 years, gives 5 stars because it nails the differences in approach between the engineering and technical sectors, and it effectively warns against tech arrogance. Also it's well written and optimistic.

A third gives it 5 stars because it's stronger and more complex than the Judiciary series.

The world would be so boring if we all thought the same way!

Matthew's Judiciary series sounds absolutely fascinating, btw. I own most of them, picked up used from Uncle Hugo's I believe, but have never read them. I'm a little scared by the investigations around torture which is one of the reason d'etres of the series, but it goes in depth into ethical questions, the psyches of the characters, and the consequences of a corrupt theocracy. As I said, fascinating.

If you want to check it out before committing to the books, her website is active and includes a bunch of free material. She's working on the 7th novel in the series. I also found a series of blog posts that Tor.com did on her writing in late 2012, concluding with a short interview.