#FromTheFlask | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

Welcome to my vague and incomplete analysis of the Honor Harrington novels, starting with the first and one of the worst: "On Basilisk Station". This is highly informal, more a conversation with ontological Other about a thing that has meaning. This initial installment's review will be distinct, as future pieces will be focused on the larger thematic and culture communicating memes. They will include any specific things that leap out at me, but only the most egregious. That doesn't mean there won't be any; I can think of a few that will prompt annoyed commentary even before starting book two! But less time will be spent discussing them, with greater attention to the real aim. With that, to the book! ... below the cut.

Wait. The LITERAL opening is the "people's Republic" Having a war meeting about conquering the "star kingdom", and how their military budget keeps them from their other budget issues being affordable. They clarify it's REALLY ubi that makes their economy weak, not the navy budget. And if they just conquer ENOUGH systems, everything will work out fine...

That's the prologue. Chapter 1? We meet Ms. Horatio Nels.... I mean Honor Harrington, proud volunteer in the Royal Manticorian Navy. She even made officer, and is happy about after 14 years finally getting to command her first ship larger than a destroyer! And we get a lot of self dialogue as exposition. And, maybe it's just me? But there's two really telling things that jump out at me, as early as page 10 of my ebook:

Welcome to my vague and incomplete analysis of the Honor Harrington novels, starting with the first and one of the worst: "On Basilisk Station". This is highly informal, more a conversation with ontological Other about a thing that has meaning. This initial installment's review will be distinct, as future pieces will be focused on the larger thematic and culture communicating memes. They will include any specific things that leap out at me, but only the most egregious. That doesn't mean there won't be any; I can think of a few that will prompt annoyed commentary even before starting book two! But less time will be spent discussing them, with greater attention to the real aim. With that, to the book!

Wait. The LITERAL opening is the "people's Republic" Having a war meeting about conquering the "star kingdom", and how their military budget keeps them from their other budget issues being affordable. They clarify it's REALLY ubi that makes their economy weak, not the navy budget. And if they just conquer ENOUGH systems, everything will work out fine...

That's the prologue. Chapter 1? We meet Ms. Horatio Nels.... I mean Honor Harrington, proud volunteer in the Royal Manticorian Navy. She even made officer, and is happy about after 14 years finally getting to command her first ship larger than a destroyer! And we get a lot of self dialogue as exposition. And, maybe it's just me? But there's two really telling things that jump out at me, as early as page 10 of my ebook:

Honor isn't pretty, and DOESN'T care at ALL about it. Not one little bit. Ok maybe a ton, but it's not like looks actually matter!

Well this quote kind of perfectly captures it? "...she came of yeoman stock, without the high-placed relatives or friends to nudge a naval career along. She'd known and accepted from the start that those with less competence but more exalted bloodlines would race past her. Well, they had, but she'd made it at last." And a bunch of other traits, like coming from a high grav world etc.

Look I've gotta be honest. This is one of the books I usually skip. It's bad, significantly so in quite a few ways. But immediately, let's see the difference. The People's Republic is a greedy multi-system power made of a nominally progressive society twisted into authoritarianism and fascism. The Star Kingdom of Manticore is a hereditary aristocracy where it's commonly accepted fact of life that those with connections to those in power end up getting ahead... AND THIS SYSTEM IS ONE OUR HERO IS WILLING TO FIGHT, KILL, AND POTENTIALLY DIE TO DEFEND THE INHERENT CORRECTNESS OF. This isn't explicitly stated, to be fair - but the cognitive dissonance that defined the series politics (see theocracy, or slavery... Well pretty much everything tbh) is already being presented as an inherent fact of existence. For point 1, see this quote from a paragraph earlier: "No, she decided once more, with a familiar shade of regret, it was a serviceable enough face, but there was no use pretending anyone would ever accuse it of radiant beauty . . . darn it." She exists within a misogynistic society, but they use "she" as the default gendered term and it was written in 1992 so that passes for woke?

I think there's a clearer answer, and it's where I introduce one of the core tenants I argue the author is unintentionally promoting: this series is a road map of some fallacies of neoliberal centrist thought. Because while the attempt is to appear progressive in some regards, the regressive elements are impossible to ignore.

Honor isn't pretty, and DOESN'T care at ALL about it. Not one little bit. Ok maybe a ton, but it's not like looks actually matter!

Well this quote kind of perfectly captures it? "...she came of yeoman stock, without the high-placed relatives or friends to nudge a naval career along. She'd known and accepted from the start that those with less competence but more exalted bloodlines would race past her. Well, they had, but she'd made it at last." And a bunch of other traits, like coming from a high grav world etc.

Look I've gotta be honest. This is one of the books I usually skip. It's bad, significantly so in quite a few ways. But immediately, let's see the difference. The People's Republic is a greedy multi-system power made of a nominally progressive society twisted into authoritarianism and fascism. The Star Kingdom of Manticore is a hereditary aristocracy where it's commonly accepted fact of life that those with connections to those in power end up getting ahead... AND THIS SYSTEM IS ONE OUR HERO IS WILLING TO FIGHT, KILL, AND POTENTIALLY DIE TO DEFEND THE INHERENT CORRECTNESS OF. This isn't explicitly stated, to be fair - but the cognitive dissonance that defined the series politics (see theocracy, or slavery... Well pretty much everything tbh) is already being presented as an inherent fact of existence. For point 1, see this quote from a paragraph earlier: "No, she decided once more, with a familiar shade of regret, it was a serviceable enough face, but there was no use pretending anyone would ever accuse it of radiant beauty . . . darn it." She exists within a misogynistic society, but they use "she" as the default gendered term and it was written in 1992 so that passes for woke?

I think there's a clearer answer, and it's where I introduce one of the core tenants I argue the author is unintentionally promoting: this series is a road map of some fallacies of neoliberal centrist thought. Because while the attempt is to appear progressive in some regards, the regressive elements are impossible to ignore.

... Yikes. 2 pages later, from the POV of a major character who becomes a close friend of hers, but starts off as a disgruntled subordinate who she works her Special Leadership Powers on and makes become exceptional instead of lazy and entitled; 'No one would ever call Commander Harrington "pretty," he thought, but she had something far more important. Those clean-cut, strong features and huge, dark brown eyes—exotically angular and sparkling with barely restrained delight despite her formal expression—discounted such ephemeral concepts as "pretty." She was herself, unique, impossible to confuse with anyone else, and that only made it worse.' This is his boss, the commander of the ship, and also a much stronger description of aesthetic appeal than "pretty" ever would be! We can't even go 2 pages without hearing how she's stunning but can't see it?

This honestly is one of the more revealing issues. Heavy use of tropes and a stereotypical set up is common in first instalments of longer series. This isn't an inherently negative thing; for pulpy action stories, these can even serve to give us as readers a deeper feel for the world and characters without the author needing to dump exposition on us. Even this early into the series Weber's doing it anyway, but honestly I don't always mind! A few pages of strategically used technobabble can spare us chapters of confusion later on, and to his credit Weber does recognize this. Yes, going to far in compensation, but this shows at least a willingness to consider what the needs of the story are from more than one (but decidedly not all) perspectives.

However, this is the first cross-roads for this journey. If I take notes as I read, commenting on everything as I come across it - even just noting the first time an issue crops up, with later instances referencing the original - this will take far, far more attention, energy, and time than I want to spend on it. As this is the first book, and one I kind of genuinely dislike, I'll be going harder on the notes and commentary than I will in future installments. Might end up splitting my commentary and notes from the thematic analysis? Not sure yet, but either way apologies for the digression. Returning to the text from where I left off!

Well, I was trying to. Unfortunately the inner monologue of McKeon we return to is hung up on appearance, now the supposed youth her newer-generation prolong treatment gives her. And this is what makes analysis of this kind of text so hard. Clearly the author knows that judging based on appearances is a poor way to operate. While this awareness is sometimes allowed to extend to the characters, a common narrative feature is the conflict between underlying appearance and actual reality. Indeed, farther into the book we'll see multiple layers of this theme applying, both literally and figuratively. But with that in mind, the more granular noting will slow down; there's so much worse in this book to get to, letting myself be bogged down in the process helps nothing. So with some regret I'll only be directly noting the most egregious passages.Honor's advancement being partially the result of having a mentor higher up in the ranks pushing her will come up a few times throughout the series, as will the concept of "patronage games". These are simultaneously depicted as dangerous and to be prevented, while also acceptable in some circumstances. This will be expanded on as the series goes, mostly because it keeps coming up.

So too will the concept of civilized versus barbaric societies. In just about every context, we are shown judgement of others based on origin, means, or other arbitrary accidental attributes is inherently flawed. Yet even our "heros" are shown to do this, and even in some cases treated as justified for doing so. In "On Basilisk Station", we will get the first lense through which to look at one of the core elements of the worldview memetically encoded into the Honorverse. There are objectively better and worse forms of society, and no matter the policies ideologies or systems and "inferior" system has no right to infringe on the superior. But I find myself moving ahead of the text, and will return with notes as things rise to my attention.

And so it is that we come to the neoliberalism. I am not claiming to know what Weber's exact ideology is, nor is this an assertion there is any intended memetic content. But the ship Honor assumes command of at the beginning of the book, the light cruiser Fearless, introduces one of the domestic political devices. The conflict between the traditionalists championed by Hamish Alexander Honor's future husband, superior, and inferior, and the jeune ecole championed by Admiral Sonja Hemphill, introduced by the nickname "horrible hemphill". Whole a disagreement about the fundamental tactical role of technology is a direct textual feature, I'm less interested in the direct story beats and instead want to draw attention to the grounding concept. Defining it as a question of which is a better way to understand things, does technology inform practicality or do the realities dictate what technology can do, presents these reductionist stances as inherent to the topic and not a result of the immense biases of the characters, and more relevantly the author. Indeed the very name he chooses for the "new school" is itself a historical reference, one that partially foreshadows the long-term progression of technology in the series. This will be expanded upon throughout the series, and the characters will likewise be important.

Additionally, the presentation of the "evil expansionist empire" that the PRH is supposed to be is echoed with Honor's brief description of Manticore's political status. The current government is the Centrists and Crown Loyalists, who in order to prevent the Liberals and Progressives from... Limiting military expenditures in favor of domestic programs? In order to prevent that from being able to happen, the centrists do as all centrists will do when forced to decide who they are comfortable working with and get help from the conservatives. In Honor's words, "It was unlikely the Conservatives would stay put—their xenophobic isolationism and protectionism were too fundamentally at odds with the Centrist and Crown Loyalist perception that open war with the People's Republic of Haven was inevitable". These are uncompromisingly vile people politically, and (spoilers) they will later demonstrate just how far they they will try to go to be pointlessly xenophobic. Itself this is a fairly decent critique of conservatism, as the bigotry from which the ideology draws is utterly inseparable from the political stances.

Here, less than 20 pages in, is where the utter failure to apply logical consistency sets in. We have already been shown the basic establishing features for a decent adventure story with a heroic cast of characters, conflicts ranging from minor and personal up to the vast machinations of interstellar politics. But in this presentation, we are assumed to unquestioningly agree: that Haven is, intrinsically, evil for believing all citizens have a right to their needs being met without capitalist exploitation; that "both ends" of the supposed political spectrum are equally unreasonable; that the question of tradition or technology is one that is answered by one of these perspectives, entirely. The immediate acknowledgement that the centrists find the conservatives their natural partners against liberal and progressive policy, and the further positioning of that as a logical choice in the face of external threat, puts this firmly into the reactionary camp. Further books, and indeed later events in this book, will only reinforce this further. The author is careful to keep both extremes as equally unacceptable; but the positioning of opposing excessive military spending with bigotry and xenophobia is an immediate warning.

Another larger note I wasn't expecting to encounter in the second chapter of book one was the emphasis placed on innate talent and ability. The eugenics of the series are another example of the memetic content, and while their visibility is undeniable later on with the importance of genetic augmentation, and in the second half of the series the inclusion of the Mesan Alignment. While less egregious, Honor's treatment for having aptitude but no familiarity or comfort with math is presented as a ultimate positive. Ablism isn't, necessarily, linked to eugenics. In the case of the Honorverse, the omnipresent "benign" ablism serves to further refine how incompletely reasoned the author's cultural values and understanding are. I'm not sorry someone who can do complex vectors in her head intuitively but despite being a top 10 student is 237th out of 241 in math? That's an example of a student being categorically and systemically failed by her entire society at large!

Excerpt Posting!

More implicit political commentary can be found shortly later, with the following passage: "...Haven had become a threat. After almost two T-centuries of deficit spending to shore up an increasingly insolvent welfare state, Haven had decided it had no choice but to turn conquistador to acquire the resources it needed to support its citizens in the style to which they had become accustomed, and the People's Navy had proven its capacity to do just that..." The People's Republic of Haven, an authoritarian welfare state with a hereditary president for life as it's chief executive and all other branches of government captured by this aristocracy? Is supposed to be the product of a system that, for two centuries, sustained deficit spending to constantly expand it's welfare state. This vast multi stellar power in that period had 0 revolutions, political changes, or systemic changes. This is pure anti communist, or anti socialist, rhetoric to begin with, and in that way already an example of what is being discussed. But I wanted to instead muse on history and social forces, with the benefit of hindsight yes but to also demonstrate again the author's utter incoherency.

Simply put, authoritarianism is I argue inconsistent with a genuine belief in, and policies ensuring, the rights and protections of all as equal and the requirement of the government to meet and protect. This is not a result of ontological properties, but rather the tautological structure being employed. This book was written in the era of the collapse of the Soviet Union, with publication being in 1992. We have numerous examples even by the time of writing where progressive ideals are used to justify regressive policies. We sould call the fascist appeal to safety a similar example with the two occupying the same abstract category. This is, truthfully, an example of the very process I am analyzing this text to better outline. An idea can, when taken without full critical understanding, influence other elements of the socal epistemic collective. The need to ensure labor is adequately distributed to ensure society can function being a gateway to a totalitarian "communist" state shows one form of this. The fascist conflation of this with all anti-capitalist, and thus anti-fascist, thought to justify the consignment of ontological Other as group to be destroyed at all costs (oh hey, a title of an Honor Harrington book...) is another. And the failure to recognize that this can occur, the underlying mechanical flaw this exploits, allows any insufficiently considered class of media - be it children's books, young adult as a genre, or adventure stories, anything that is intended to entertain but not provide a robust and reliable epistemic reference source - to become this infected.

Sorry, this isn't a critique of contemporary politics and I will try to prevent it from bleeding in too much. I'll fail repeatedly, just know i'm holding back a LOT.

back to the thoughts!

And the guy who tried to rape her, welcome to the primary personal antagonist of the first 4 books! I. Why. Why is it ALWAYS this. Oh, well at least she fought him off... Doesn't really change the fact that, the biggest single past event we learn about her to this point is sexual assault. It's so fucking tiring. It's near universal use as a trope doesn't mean it's inevitable, it means shitty people have existed. Sorry, not going to soap box but please stop having sexual assault be a part of how we know how strong the female protagonist is! Here's a great example passage: "She should have told the whole story, she thought miserably, but he was the son of a powerful nobleman and she was only the daughter of a retired medical officer. And not a particularly beautiful one, either. Who would have believed the Earl of North Hollow's son had assaulted and attempted to rape a gawky, overgrown lump of a girl who wasn't even pretty? Besides, where was her proof?" Why. SO MANY why's, and through all of them the constant theme of the author's inability to understand the value systems that result from the structures they show and how the characters integrate into them. The relative social importance of class again shows up as not only a description of the way things are but as a natural and uncontroversial concept. Likewise the continued attention to aesthetics, both with Honor's description of self and in the ways Young is described. It will continue to come up repeatedly throughout the series as well, and while later books will thankfully show some growth in terms of self understanding from Honor the underlying value systems emphasized are unchanged.

And now we encounter casual homophobia. I get it's written in 1992 but this wasn't on to do then either! "this is the first time some tight-assed little faggot in a pretty uniform's boarded my ship" Not really much to say here. Yes, this is supposed to be a furious statement made by someone we are supposed to dislike. The (presumably, although from every indication I can find) cis-het author will as soon as the next book begin defending non-tradtional marriage, with the introduction of the (theocratic) Grayson's (religiously controlled) polygamy. This grace is not extended broadly, and while this instance is the only direct example I remarked on in the first book the fact it's considered an acceptable expression to use is an extension of this. Homophobia'a presence being involved as a marker of a "bad" person still requires that the expression is acceptable, to some segment of the population. While that may be reflective of reality, including it shows the underlying memetic framework considers this expression to be something that is within the range of "optimistic" preservation of present values.

A few pages later, we're confronted with this gem "the natives might look like some sort of circus freaks," This from someone we're supposed to be liking more as a result of this pov segment. And the attitude it draws from, the unquestionable superiority of not just humanity but the culture the perspective is grounded in, is one such example of the need for this analysis. That attitude, whether it is here or references to the "stilties" as inferior, and the constant demeaning of barbarism is presented as a thing to be mindful of and guarded against. Yet it's omnipresence in the series, and the way no matter the individual or circumstance it's presented as a "less worthy" mindset, proves the author's unintentional deployment of this theme. The thought, this mentality, isn't the problem: letting it show to others, is. While I agree that stance is objectionable, framing it as acceptable so long as you know not to act on it is ensuring that bigotry remains rooted in the thematic content of the series.

It's too long to quote, but the passage closing chapter 11 is a fantastic microencapsulation of these issues. McKeon, after they catch a major trading cartel involved in smuggling endangered animal pelts, asks Honor if it's worth screwing up her career to pursue. When they leave their post, this kind of thing will resume... But it's their job is to stop, so they will to the best of their ability. Duty, absolutism, and the necessity of knowing the exact correct interpretation of what to do and being able to broadly cross apply it are the literal textual argument being advocated. But this is alongside incompletely applied logic, active bad faith supposition, and aggressively reactionary framing from the the conceptual level up. It's not a bad point, in that if principle is held to be absolute it must be applied universally. This is shown to be something even the "good" leaders do, both with advancing some people over others as well as directly violating the law to manipulate circumstances. These very things are presented as unacceptable... except for when the hero's "have" to.

Ultimately i forced myself to just read and not critique as I went. The politics in the story are bad, but only because they're blatantly incoherent as I've missed in earlier. There's examples just about everywhere, and I'm probably going to have a section later on in this about just now bad the logic is. But, ultimately, I think this is just not a great book. Not like, categorically horrible or actively subversive. It's just kinda bad, and doesn't have massive fleet engagements to make skipping the bad parts worth it. Forgettable, and worth it for completions sake but not a book I recommend.

Oh, right. Forgot there was a brief history lesson about the political system of Manticore! This, as a preface, is a place the author is inserting their opinion on a good response. This isn't necessarily something he's advocating for in the real world, but it is inaeguably presented as good both value-wise and policy-wise. This is highly summarized, but after a plague early I'm the colony's history they were able to utilize their invested leftover capital from the original settlement project to run a second recruiting program, to bring in new settlers after 60% of the planet's population died. The survivors were given huge tracts of land and resources in proportion to their original investment. Anyone who was able to pay their own way, entirely, was given land equal to the value of their passage with options to purchase more; partially received land in proportion to the amount they paid. Those that relied on the colony to pay for transit weren't indentured, but they did arrive with only the possessions they had been permitted to bring. This is presented as a "good" choice as it brought in more educated and wealthy colonists, preserved the legal authority of the original settlers, and served to concentrate "desirable" citizens. Funny, another thread of the eugenicist ideals. Keep a tab on these, they're important.

NOW on to book two, "The Honor of the Queen", where we meet the major ally of Manticore through the series and the hereditary aristocratic theocracy with legally enforced misogyny! I will NOT be following this same format for it, as this book was not worth 3700 words of analysis. More time has been spent writing up my thoughts than reading, a ratio I hope to reverse going forward. More focus will be given to continuous threads and themes, as with every additional book these become clearer and clearer. I'm also not going to try and follow plotlines or exact details, because frankly I could not care less? This series is one I read only for the space fights - I didn't need to write this piece to know I don't want to read this book again!