The fifth volume in Weber’s Safehold series (after 2010’s A Mighty Fortress) builds solidly on the foundation provided by its predecessors. The Empire of Charis has won a string of hard-fought victories against the military might of the Church of God Awaiting and its corrupt and vengeful vicariate, but despite the advantages provided by the seijin Merlin Athrawes—once, a long time ago in a universe far, far away, the Terran Navy Lieutenant Commander Nimue Alban—and their forces’ ability to dominate the seas, Emperor Cayleb and Empress Sharleyan remain on the defensive against an enemy who on land outnumber them by a margin of fifteen to one.
Worse, the Church, in the person of the Grand Inquisitor, has decided to employ options other than battlefield war. Assassination might be de rigueur, but Grand Inquisitor Clyntahn has single-handed reinvented the terrorist cell in order to better rain explosive gunpowdery death down upon the cities of heretical Charis. He’s also begun to foment civil unrest in Charis’s single potential mainland ally. Meanwhile, Merlin finally learns what technological threat potentially lies sleeping under the Temple in the Church’s city of Zion. Here’s a hint: it’s not good news for Charis.
I should probably mention that How Firm A Foundation is definitely not a book that stands alone, but those of us who enjoyed previous offerings in the series will certainly enjoy this one. Madame Ahnzhelyk Phonda returns under a new alias to stir the pot in the Republic of Siddarmark; Princess Irys and Prince Daivyn, young exiles from the princedom of Corisande, spend time at the fore of the action, as does Ensign Hector Aplyn-Ahrmahk; Paityr Wylsynn, the only Schuelerite priest left in Charis, receives a revelation and has a crisis of faith; Merlin foils another several assassination attempts; and both Church and Charis manoeuvre to prepare for the next round of hostilities.
The early modern weapons development geekery and immense enthusiasm for minute nautical detail of previous books is once again in full flow. I admit, I tend to skim the sections that go deeply into shiphandling: I’ve sailed as crew aboard a tallship, but my tolerance for whole pages of, “Let fall!” “Brace up!” “Clew home!” while backing, tacking, and wearing ship isn’t what it might be. Weapons development is described with loving exactitude, and I skimmed a few of those parts too, in favour of reaching the sections where things went Boom! (occasionally with extreme prejudice) more quickly.
Weber’s most obvious theme, from the beginning of this series, has been the conflict between religion and faith, reflexive obedience and compassionate questioning. It’s an interesting theme to examine, and fun to read (although, dear me, you’d think there might be one atheist from the ranks of people who have learned that their entire world’s belief structure was deliberately built out of whole cloth by their colonist ancestors) but I’m disappointed with the level of Evilness displayed by the Church hierarchy and given prominent position in this volume. It’s not quite cackling, puppy-kicking levels of Eeeeeevil, but it does approach deliberate self-sabotage.
The contrast with our heroes—who are Good, Decent People with Their Backs To The Wall, and nary a power-hungry self-aggrandiser among them—gives me moderate amounts of cognitive dissonance. Particularly when we’re treated to the grimly heroic march towards torturous death of several dozen Charisian naval personnel, the leader of whom, in the grand tradition of unbelievable endurance, dies without having broken under torture.*
*Look, I don’t care how bloody-minded, decent, or stubborn you are. If you don’t die within the first couple of days, at most the first couple of weeks, of sustained torture-in-search-of-a-confession, eventually you’re going to tell the nice men with the knives and the hot irons everything they want to hear. Sufficient torture will destroy your sense of self.
You might recant your confession later, but you’ll make it. Unless we’re talking about someone who can shut off their pain centres at will.
The other thing which annoyed me, in this book as in previous ones, is Weber’s choice of the word jihad to refer to the Church’s holy war of extermination against the heretics of Charis. In a world where most of the visible religious structures seem analogous to medieval Christianity, and any direct Islamic influence is invisible—at least to me—this seems counter-intuitive.
Jihad is a multivalent word in Arabic, and there are four kinds of jihad in Islamic jurisprudence and theology. I’m uneasy with the fact that the English use of the term seems to have accepted the Salafis’ and the Muslim Brotherhood’s interpretation of jihad (as jihad bis saif, struggle by the sword) as the most valid one. It’s an inflammatory interpretation, and I’m uncomfortable to find it used in a context which is not otherwise visibly influenced by Islam.
It’s entirely possible I’m being wildly oversensitive here. But words mean things, and I think it’s appropriate to be a little more careful than usual when using loanwords borrowed directly from someone else’s religion.
On the whole, How Firm A Foundation is a fun, entertaining book, with sea-battles, explosions, and civil uprisings galore. Clocking in over 560 pages—607 including appendices and maps—it’s a hefty one, but it moves along rapidly enough, and developments in the concluding chapters indicate that the next phase of the war may well prove a change of paradigm from the conflict thus far. I’m already looking forward to the sequel.
Liz Bourke is reading for a postgraduate degree in Classics at Trinity College, Dublin. She also reviews for Ideomancer.com.
Ahnzhelyk Phonda …Republic of Siddarmark; Princess Irys and Prince Daivyn,…Hector Aplyn-Ahrmahk;… Paityr Wylsynn,
Look at these names. This was always my trouble reading safehold. I could never keep the names straight.
but I’m disappointed with the level of Evilness displayed by the Church hierarchy and given prominent position in this volume. It’s not quite cackling, puppy-kicking levels of [i]Eeeeeevil, but it does approach deliberate self-sabotage. The contrast with our heroes—who are Good, Decent People with Their Backs To The Wall, and nary a power-hungry self-aggrandiser among them[/I]
This is sort of expected from Weber. He never does nuanced shades of grey. Everyone firmly wears a white hat or a black hat. This can either be a refreshing change of pace or slightly dull depending on how your feeling at that time.
I enjoy the Safehold books, not quite as much as Honor Harrington, but certainly a lot more than a lot of other stuff I see out there. Weber is a very solid writer, who does great world building and has seldom disappointed. I rather enjoy the sailing parts, and the details. He is certainly the master of military scifi.
I do think you are being overly sensitive about the use of the word jihad. It has pretty much entered the lexicon of common use in english.
@1 I have to disagree that there are no shades of grey in Weber’s writings. There are a lot of moral choices in Weber’s writings and his characters dont always pick the right ones. And even the opposition is made up of a mix of evil and good characters.
Look, I don’t care how bloody-minded, decent, or stubborn you are. If you don’t die within the first couple of days, at most the first couple of weeks, of sustained torture-in-search-of-a-confession, eventually you’re going to tell the nice men with the knives and the hot irons everything they want to hear.
Actually this turns out not to be the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violette_Szabo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._E._Yeo-Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odette_Hallowes
I expect he chose to use the word Jihad deliberately. The only similar word in common knowledge today would be Crusade, and to the western world, that has positive connotations especially when used in a religious context. Jihad on the other hand, is widely associated with the onslaught of closed minded Muslim Hordes ™.
Naturally from an eastern point of view, the situation is exactly reversed. Jihad becomes a struggle in honor of god, while Crusaders are single minded invaders intent on despoiling all in their path.
To be fair, both points of view have more than a few grains of truth to them, the Crusades were not a nice time to be around in, and neither side treated the locals very well.
Since Weber generally sells to the Western market, he needs to associate his Evil Religious Empire with bad connotations, and given the lack of broader education in the western world today, his word choice is pretty much a given.
4: it’s also the word used by Frank Herbert to mean, exclusively, “massive destructive fanatical religious war” – both the Butlerian Jihad and the jihad unleashed by Paul Atreides.
@5 True, but in Herberts case he was explicitly using Jihad in the eastern sense, as the Fremen were Zensunni descendents of Islamic traditions crossed with Buddhist teachings.
The Butlerian Jihad was (as per GEoD) a semi religious social struggle, between the faithful of humanity, and the godless machines controlling their destinies.
At the time the Zensunni were pacifistic wanderers, the survivors of whom fled to Arrakis. The development of the peaceful wanderers into the warlike Fremen is one of the major plot points of his writing.
He also included excerpts from Zensufi teachings in CH:D, and the prequels brought in Zenshiites as violent fanatics.
Frank Herbert put a lot of thought into the development of religions over time. His son, not so much, they end up more as convenient labels.
@a1ay: I’ll have to take your word for it: I’m away from home for a few weeks for work right now and only irregularly able to internet.
@Megaduck
I find it’s not so much keeping the names straight, it’s not breaking out in hysterical laughter. Here’s a hint, Weber: using as many y’s, k’s, and z’s as possible does not a) actually change the pronunciation of names like “Angelique”, “Peter”, “Clinton”, or “Charlene”, or b) make them “futuristic”. It makes you look like a semi-illiterate teenage mother. (Not to mention: there were non-white-English-speaking people involved in the colonisation of the planet, where did all those names go?)
What really made me give up on this series after the first book*, though, was the way that Weber created an unwillingly transgendered character – Merlin/Nimue is a heterosexual woman stuck in a man’s body – and then totally failed to understand or address any of the issues that would result. (“OMG, I’m still attracted to men even though I’m in a male body – I know, I’ll just shut my sexual responses down and then we don’t need to talk or think about this ever again!”
I know in his worlds gay people and atheists (and, hah, transgendered people) don’t exist no matter how far into the future or otherwise liberal society is, but this was just silly.
*Since I didn’t keep reading, it’s *possible* he got better on this, but past performance suggests it’s unlikely.
@Mayhem:
Crusade’s not a word that has many positive connotations for me (Albigensian, anyone?) – but I’m biased by having read too many of the sources from both sides.
@sixthlight:
He didn’t get better. (I try not to think too hard about it, and just enjoy the explosions, myself – but then, I’m in a position of privilege on that count.)
Mayhem: good point; but I meant that he was still using “jihad” exclusively to mean “great big (albeit righteous) war” rather than any of the wider meanings of the word.
sixthlight, that made me laugh. I will think of him as Davyyd Wybyyrr from now on.
@@@@@ a1ay Hah, he deserves it. I think the most egregious example was some poor lady in the first one called something like “Zhynyfyr”, which puzzled me for a while until I realised she was a Jennifer, and then I cried a little for humanity, trapped on a planet with no vowels.
@@@@@hawkwing-lb The thing is, I LIKE Weber. I like space explosions. I like pages of exposition about technology. I like his plots. I like most of his characters. It’s just that I can only take so much egregious erasure of non-WASPy-straight-cis-people and total failure to understand how societies work (Grayson. Grayson x 3 billion), and then I have to throw Weber across the room and go hug my S.M. Stirling books, and can’t I just have some *progressive* space explosions? Is that really too much to ask?
@9&10, I agree, I don’t have many positive associations with either word, and I suspect few people interested in history would.
On the other hand, think of how many prominent leaders in the US are described as ‘Righteous crusaders’ for moral causes or against political opposition. Even people like Martin Luther King gets described as a ‘crusader for equal rights’, and Batman is known as the ‘Caped Crusader’.
Like it or not, in the Western world, the word has morphed over time to pick up far too many connotations from righteousness, reformers, abolitionists, and those that stand up for the rights of others against an oppressor.
Those aren’t suitable contexts for an Evil Empire, especially one based on a version of Christianity from the middle ages.
I do like the Davyd Wybyyr idea though :)
At least one of the Inner Circle (the Charian spy master) became an atheist upon “learning the Truth”. It was mentioned in an earlier book.
As a religious person, I found David Weber very good about protraying the “good side” of religion as well as the “bad side” of religion.
I’ve read too many SF/Fantasy books where the religious people are the “bad guys” with no religious good guys.
I don’t see David Weber “picking on” atheists.
@sixthlight:
I’m pretty much in the same boat. Like explosions and geekery. Would really like to see more diversity.
@DrakBibliophile:
Did I say he was picking on atheists? I don’t think I did. But he had an opportunity (or several) to explore his theme from other perspectives, and has chosen not to.
Fairly hard to find “home-grown” atheists in that sort of world. Remember that Safehold had strong historical evidence for their religion.
What kind of perspective are you thinking about?
The standard “religion is stupid/evil” point of view that we’ve heard so much about in the modern world?
Or something else?
@DrakBibliophile:
It seems the issue of atheism is a somewhat touchy subject for us both. I do think Weber has missed an opportunity to portray characters developing more diverse attitudes towards faith: not only atheism, but deism and approaches towards religion apart from the Inquisitors’ rigid dogmatism and Stanair’s trust in a loving deity. But I find that Weber lacks diversity of characterisation in general: character isn’t what I read him for.
I don’t think anyone in this thread has suggested that religion is stupid. I might be an atheist myself (and don’t ever let me get started banging on about historical context: three years of taking classes in biblical studies means I will argue authorship and literary-critical approaches at length), but people get a lot of things out of faith, and most of them are perfectly unobjectionable and even laudable.
If an attachment to a particular notion of religion stops someone from thinking critically, assessing evidence objectively, or behaving with a modicum of empathy… as the Church hierarchy, and particularly the Inquisition, seems to do to some degree in Weber’s Safehold… then one might want to consider whether that particular notion of religion is actively harmful and ought to be reassessed.
And I think that reassessment can occur in any number of ways, only one of which Weber’s interested in portraying here. And I think it’s reasonable to point that out.
(As long as nobody asks me how I can live without the external moral guidance of scriptural authority – that’s just insulting – me, personally, I think it’s all good.)
I’d also add that Weber seems to actively *avoid* depicting atheists, even in societies and situations where you’d expect to find them – c.f. largely the Honor Harrington series, where basically everyone is explicitly religious and someone once talks about “even” having served with an atheist, like that’s exceptional.
Weber is a lay Methodist preacher and that obviously informs his writing, which is to be expected; but it’s worth noting, if he’s going to bring religion into his characterisation and work. If he just chose to avoid the topic altogether – which is entirely doable – that’d be one thing, but he doesn’t, so the absence of a lack of belief is notable. To those of us who are atheists, anyway.
Chuckle Chuckle
Sixthlight, I’ve read too many stories (SF & Fantasy) where the only religious people are people like Clyntahn.
I chuckled when a poster above talked about how “self-destructively” evil the bad guys are.
Sorry Sixthlight, I’ve seen other characters like those in other books where the “Heroes” were atheists (or at least non-religious).
You don’t like Weber’s lack of atheists?
I dislike the lack of good people who are religious in some writers work.
@DrakBiblophile:
If you’d like to bring other parts of SFF literature into the question, I’d appreciate it if you could use concrete examples. Otherwise, let’s keep the discussion focused on How Firm A Foundation and Safehold here, please?
FWIW, I don’t recall any of the Havenites being religious, but since, for the first 2/3 of the series so far they’re the godless communists of the People’s Republic, that’s probably to be expected.
As for the gender issues mentioned by @sixthlight, to wit, “I know in his world gay people and atheists and (and, hah, transgendered people) don’t exist no matter how far into the future or otherwise liberal society is, but this was just silly.”, someone didn’t read very carefully.
To quote from the first book, “Nimue Alban had never been tempted to shift genders, either in her own biological case, oreven temporarily, using her PICA. Others had been rather more adventurous, however, andPICAs had been designed to be fully functional in every sense. And since the technology hadbeen available, the PICA designers had seen no reason not to allow their customers toreconfigure the gender, as well as the general physical appearance, of their marvelous,expensive toys.”
Seems to me like there are at a minimum transgender experimentists in Weber’s world, and it’s not treated with horror. Is it treated extensively? No, but it’s not ignored either. I can name a couple of times later in the series it’s brought up without thinking to hard. But I know this is going to come as a shock to some of you, not everything has to be about sex/gender issues.
Also, if you read the Honor Harrington books you realize that one branch of the good guys, the Beowulfians, home of Honor’s mother, are very progressive, absolutely libertine as seen by most of the rest of the societies in place.
hawkwing-lb, will do.
@DrakBibliophile:
Thanks.
@17, 20
FWIW, I don’t recall any of the Havenites being religious, but since,
for the first 2/3 of the series so far they’re the godless communists of
the People’s Republic, that’s probably to be expected.
Actually, they’re not. The Havenites are very explicitly based on the formation of the French Republic, from the corrupted aristocracy and the fall of the Monarchy, through the Reign of Terror, to (currently) the Directory. Part and parcel of this was the fall of hereditary entitlement, and the rise of Citizenship, and the Rights of Man. Since these rights didn’t exist before, determining what they should be turned out to be a fairly messy process.
The interesting thing will be whether he elects to develop a Napoleon or not – the Directory evolved into the Consulate, which lead directly to the Napoleonic Empire and the case of France v. Europe (1)
The Honorverse is less explicitly religious than you would think, most of the books develop the geopolitical context of 18th century Europe, with Manticore as the English, Andermani as the Prussians, Haven as the French, and Silesia as a takeoff on its namesake. The Solarian League is vaguely equivalent of the Spanish at the peak of their powers, but doesn’t really fit the same time period. From a religious context, most countries were religious in the same way that people breathe air. It wasn’t explicit, it just was. England (hence Manticore) was very much For God and England. France (Haven) however was moving to a more egalatarian society, where people were equal before god, and the political powers of the church was broken. In that context, explicit atheism would be highly unusual, Europe having mostly emerged from several centuries of bitter religious conflict between the catholics, protestants, orthodox & counter/counter-reform sects.
In fact, I suspect the Safehold series is inspired around that exact time period – the major schism of Christianity into multiple sects paralleling the split between the Church of God Awaiting and the church in Charis.
@23, Napoleon already put in an appearance in the Harrington books. That’s roughly where Harrington started derailing from the historical parallel, since Weber’s Napoleon jumped the gun on a coup and got herself nuked several books back. With the shift in focus to the Mesans and Solarians as primary antagonists, it’s likely the books have finished recapitulating that time period. So it’s a little less Horatio Hornblower IN SPACE nowadays.
But yes, both early Harrington and Safehold are set in sci-fi analogues of times when atheism proper was almost unheard of. It feels a bit wierd in Harrington, since most of the other aspects he appropriated are more explicitly justified. By contrast, the justification is put front and center in Safehold’s worldbuilding.
From what I heard, David Weber didn’t intended to be writing “Hornblower in space”.
His People’s Republic of Haven was (in his mind) a United States gone wrong.
Oh, McQueen wasn’t the Honorverse Napoleon.
Theisman was a good version of Napoleon. While Napoleon made himself “King”, Theisman restored the old Republic of Haven that existed prior to it becoming the People’s Republic of Haven.
@24,25
Hmm, the leader of the Committee of Public Safety, a man by the name of Rob S. Pierre unleashes chaos in the wake of a revolution assisted by a man by the name of Saint-Just. Yes, his origins are fairly plain to see. That being said, I just reread one of his FAQs, and he states
I conditioned readers who’d picked up on it and who knew their history to expect me to eventually produce the Havenite equivalent of Emperor Napoleon, when in fact I had absolutely no intention of doing anything of the sort.
so I guess LookingGlass is right on the idea of McQueen as Napoleon blown apart.
(hehe, sorry)
@Artanian
“Also, if you read the Honor Harrington books you realize that one branch of the good guys, the Beowulfians, home of Honor’s mother, are very progressive, absolutely libertine as seen by most of the rest of the societies in place.”
See, that’s exactly my point. We’re *told* all about how libertine and progressive the Beowulfians are, but the only Beowulfian we really meet is in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship (Weber goes out of his way to stress just how monogamous it is) and the only gay characters we ever meet in the main HH series are a) an evil lesbian, for two pages and b) a bisexual woman who is conveniently disabled in such a way that no-one will ever have to deal with her bisexuality. (I mean, I’d assume that “I’m OK with opening this marriage up to another woman because if I could I’d be hitting that too” would have come up in conversation, and I’d think you’d have a moral duty to reveal that you’re sexually attracted to someone you’re marrying even if you’re not going to be acting on it, but if it does we never hear about it.)
The Safehold quote is another excellent example: acknowledge,
immediately refrain from talking or thinking about. Nimue might be using technology with transgender implications, but she’s never dealt with as a transgender character. I don’t think everything has to be about sex or gender. I do think if you’re going to approach those issues, you are obliged to spend *some* time thinking about it.
It’s very notable that the spin-off HH-universe books written by Eric Flint are, comparatively, a Gay Pride parade. It’s not that the universe doesn’t have room for gay people, it’s that Weber mysteriously manages to avoid ever showing any of them (or, if he absolutely has to show them, to avoid showing them being actively gay or bi.) It’s poor world-building, if nothing else.
Like I said: I enjoy reading Weber. I get why he writes this way. I just think that it’s entirely reasonable to critique his avoidance as avoidance. And to wish for some decent military sci-fi that didn’t engage in it.
Wasn’t there an POV allusion to Earl Coris admiring another man’s mustash and physique?
Cant find the reference, but I recall it seemed to be vaguely suggestive, Coris was also said to be exceptionally well dressed and groomed.
Probably nothing, or perhaps he just suppresses those feelings as most men in a medieval culture would.