The dialogue disease?

[clifford wright]

This is some thing I first noticed in Weber's "Honorverse" series even
those with cowriters like Eric Flint.
The entire novel (or most of it) consists of passages of dialogue, you have
to look a long way to find any descriptive writing at all.

I have been a fan of David's work for some years now and have very much
enjoyed the original Honor Harrington books and the "Armageddon reef"
series.
It came as quite a shock when I began some of the "Honorverse" novels
in the end I found them almost unreadable, don't forget I was familiar
with the books for which they are apparently "fill ins",so I was not in the
position of someone unfamiliar with the "universe".

What makes it worse for me is that the "disease" (if it is one) seems to be
spreading througout the genre. I just tried to read the last Larry Niven
ringworld novel, what do I find? Dialogue ad nauseam, nothing else but!

I have almost a complete set of Niven in my library also, so I was given
another nasty shock. He had been one of my favourite authors since the
1960's, but now he writes a book that I can't be bothered to do more than
skim through, mostly looking for some descriptive passages or at least some
break from dialogue, without success.

I've been reading SF for 60 of my 72 years so I've read and seen a lot.
However I am quite sure that I would NEVER have become a fan if it was like
these samples.

Crite40 NZ

[Frank O'Connor]

Well yeah, but …

1. Old time SF had such corny descriptive passages that it dates very
badly. Think of little numbers like the EE 'Doc' Smith's Lensman
series, or Kornbluth's novels, or Olaf Stapledon's tomes and you'll see
that they're riddled with bad (read tedious) over-written descriptive
passages containing endless superlatives about things that the writers
obviously had no idea about, that were scientifically incorrect, and
that made/make little or no sense in the context of current science and
research. I mean, they read more like (bad) dated fantasy than SciFi.

2. One of the recurrent criticisms of the SF genre has been that
characterisation and plot tends to take a back seat to the
technology/science. DW (in the Honroverse at least) represents a move
away from this. I mean, you could whack most of his Honroverse stories
in any military context at all (and many of his battle scenes parallel
actual battles that have taken place over the last 1-200 years or so)
and I see the Honorverse series as primarily that … military fiction
with a science fiction bent.

3. When you get down to it, there's not a lot of technological hoo-ha,
or scientific exploration in the Honorverse. I mean, there's no real
adaptation of technologies that are now leading edge (nano-tech,
femto-tech) … in many ways - considering that the Honorverse is about
2000 years in our future - the technology is very mundane and indicates
that ther emust've been a Dark Ages period in that 2000 years of 1500
years or more, there's very little astronomical exposition, there's no
examination of the Big Questions like Dark Matter/Energy, the
accelerating expansion of the universe or whatever … the plot simply
moves the characters along between grand tactical and strategic
end-points. Indeed, except for the Warshawski Sails, there's very
little original technology in the whole series.

That works because of the characterisation, not in spite of it. You
actually care how the various characters fare, you see both sides of a
seemingly dichotomic situation, the real tragedy of way … which you
wouldn't see, if not for the characterisation.

Is there too much of it? The market would indicate not. DW's works have
consistently appeared on best seller lists, and sold humungous amounts
of copy.

So, I don't see it as a disease … it moves plot between climactic
points, it provides great exposition of the thinking and motivations of
the 'movers and shakers' in any given book, it explains how, more often
than not, military plans and prognostications fall apart because of
erroneous information, assumptions, biases or accepted wisdom, and how
those of a political bent often find themselves holding a tiger by the
tail when they elect to use military options.

Just my 2 cents worth ...

Post by clifford wright
This is some thing I first noticed in Weber's "Honorverse" series even
those with cowriters like Eric Flint.
The entire novel (or most of it) consists of passages of dialogue, you have
to look a long way to find any descriptive writing at all.
I have been a fan of David's work for some years now and have very much
enjoyed the original Honor Harrington books and the "Armageddon reef"
series.
It came as quite a shock when I began some of the "Honorverse" novels
in the end I found them almost unreadable, don't forget I was familiar
with the books for which they are apparently "fill ins",so I was not in the
position of someone unfamiliar with the "universe".
What makes it worse for me is that the "disease" (if it is one) seems to be
spreading througout the genre. I just tried to read the last Larry Niven
ringworld novel, what do I find? Dialogue ad nauseam, nothing else but!
I have almost a complete set of Niven in my library also, so I was given
another nasty shock. He had been one of my favourite authors since the
1960's, but now he writes a book that I can't be bothered to do more than
skim through, mostly looking for some descriptive passages or at least some
break from dialogue, without success.
I've been reading SF for 60 of my 72 years so I've read and seen a lot.
However I am quite sure that I would NEVER have become a fan if it was like
these samples.
Crite40 NZ

[JohnFair]

Well yeah, but �
3. When you get down to it, there's not a lot of technological hoo-ha,
or scientific exploration in the Honorverse. I mean, there's no real
adaptation of technologies that are now leading edge (nano-tech,
femto-tech) � in many ways - considering that the Honorverse is about
2000 years in our future - the technology is very mundane and indicates
that ther emust've been a Dark Ages period in that 2000 years of 1500
years or more, there's very little astronomical exposition, there's no
examination of the Big Questions like Dark Matter/Energy, the
accelerating expansion of the universe or whatever � the plot simply
moves the characters along between grand tactical and strategic
end-points. Indeed, except for the Warshawski Sails, there's very
little original technology in the whole series.

Well, given the genre one shouldn't really expect to see much scientific experimentation unless it's going towards bigger bangs, and we do get FTL communications with the implications this has on the military CCC loop.

The way most authors justify the apparent lack of scientific development is by saying that the effort of colonising all that real estate Out There is taking away development on the more, ah, blue-sky aspects of research. And of course many of those colonies have their own little Dark Ages thereby allowing a wide range of technologically able societies.

Post by clifford wright
Crite40 NZ

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by clifford wright
I've been reading SF for 60 of my 72 years so I've read and seen a lot.
However I am quite sure that I would NEVER have become a fan if it was like
these samples.

You haven't read much Asimov, have you?

[Aahz Maruch]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by clifford wright
I've been reading SF for 60 of my 72 years so I've read and seen a lot.
However I am quite sure that I would NEVER have become a fan if it was like
these samples.

You haven't read much Asimov, have you?

...she said purply.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by Aahz Maruch

Post by Michelle Steiner
You haven't read much Asimov, have you?

...she said purply.

*snort*

[Aahz Maruch]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by Aahz Maruch

Post by Michelle Steiner
You haven't read much Asimov, have you?

...she said purply.

*snort*

Figured you'd be mauved by that.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by Aahz Maruch

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by Aahz Maruch

Post by Michelle Steiner
You haven't read much Asimov, have you?

...she said purply.

*snort*

Figured you'd be mauved by that.

And with that comment, I'll lavender this thread.

[clifford wright]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by clifford wright
I've been reading SF for 60 of my 72 years so I've read and seen a
lot. However I am quite sure that I would NEVER have become a fan if
it was like these samples.

You haven't read much Asimov, have you?

Well I liked "I Robot", but I was never mad about the "Foundation"
series.
Come to think of it I was never as great Asimov fan. Heinlein was "talky"
but he seemed to carry the reader along much better. You need a GPS rather
than a roadmap to work your way through some of the novels I've seen
lately.
The latest Niven collaboration in the "ringword" series seemed to be
written as a lot of only slightly connected conversations.
Have you looked at the books I mentioned BTW?
Opinions seem to vary out here in NZ, I do note though that women readers
tend to find them less of a chore. I know several David Weber fans and that
seems to be the concensus.
However my local librarian (F) who is also a AH and military SF fan, has
similar opinions to mine.

crite40 new zealand

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by clifford wright
Have you looked at the books I mentioned BTW?

I've read every book in the Honorverse (except for the juvenile prequels
about Stephanie Harrington), and have read all the books in the Armageddon
Reef series, and have enjoyed them all.

I never got into the Ringworld series, though.

Oh, and I'm about two years younger than you are.

[clifford wright]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by clifford wright
Have you looked at the books I mentioned BTW?

I've read every book in the Honorverse (except for the juvenile
prequels about Stephanie Harrington), and have read all the books in
the Armageddon Reef series, and have enjoyed them all.
I never got into the Ringworld series, though.
Oh, and I'm about two years younger than you are.

Been having a think about the posts on this thread and suddenly
remembered what really threw me in one of the "Honorverse" fill ins.
Manticore is suddenly attacked by Haven, this is clear to the reader,
but we are left having to "switch off" this knowledge for over a hundred
pages while the "conversations" catch up. OK so the reader often has a
"God's eye view" but that is the attraction of fiction over fact.

I happen to be a trained Historian, you will find VERY few connected
analysies of a situation until after the fact and often long after.
It is easy to imagine how difficult a modern history would be to follow
if the reader was only presented with what a given protagonist knew at
the time.

THAT to me is where fiction comes in, like a good historical analysis,
it makes sense of, in this case, a hypothetical and fictional situation
by allowing the reader to see the whole picture.

I guess though that a "Real" fan would have to read some of the
"Honorverse" fill ins with the whole series of novels as reference works.
Perhaps the right term is "self referential".
You know I had to do a lot of that for my degree work years ago.
Don't really fancy it for relaxation.