53 of 60 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
"Off Armageddon Reef" Decent Start to New Series ..., June 30, 2007
"Off Armageddon Reef" was the first David Weber-penned novel I've read, so I like to think that this can be a useful review for other readers who are also new to Weber. Time will tell, I guess. With no further ado:
WHAT I LIKED
1. The introduction to the new series rocked. I thoroughly enjoyed the setup involving the Terran Federation and the Gbaba Empire. And, while I enjoyed it, it was also sad because, over the span of three to four decades, the reader bore witness to humanity's gradual destruction at the hands of the ever-advancing Gbaba, despite our having taken the war to some of their worlds for a period of time.
2. The introduction of Safehold and how the administrators of humanity's last colony set up a system that ensured it would become stagnant, technology-wise, and, even worse, worship those same administrators as archangels and angels. As a person who loves learning new things and seeing society advance forward in general, it was for me to swallow seeing millions of people intentionally held down in the Dark Ages. Yet, at the same time, it was for their own good. To rise again too quickly would likely bring the Gbaba down on humanity's last hope, even if the colony was 10,000 light years beyond the former star systems of the destroyed Terran Federation. Heh. They should have split the difference -- keep humanity's remnant ignorant for say, 500 years, then let them begin learning again, about not only their lost past, but new things as well.
3. I became attached to a number of the characters, but in particular, Crown Prince Cayleb and King Haarhald, both of Charis. It's always a good thing when an author can make a reader care for at least some of the characters. Other characters that drew my attention included Nimue Alban/Merlin Athrawes and, oddly enough, Archbishop Erayk Dynnys. (I think I spelled the names correctly; if not, my apologies.)
4. The occasional use of ancient, advanced (and, mostly, lost) technology that was scattered throughout the novel.
5. Great description, especially of the space and naval battles. The writing was so good that there were times I winced and felt genuine sorrow for the crews, nameless as they mostly were, of these great starships and seagoing vessels that were being chewed up in the meatgrinder of war.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE
1. The bastardization of characters' names. Allow me to use some of the names I mentioned above: Erayk Dynnys, Crown Prince Cayleb and King Haarhald (these are just a few of the many, many such names readers will encounter in this novel). Almost every time I ran into these names, especially in the first third of the novel, they would throw me right out of the story, as I had to stop and figure out how to pronounce them. Throwing a reader out of the story is a *major* no-no, as I'm sure you're aware of, Weber. So why do it? And, no, that line about how pronunciations and spellings shift over the centuries doesn't work, especially when it's seemingly only people's names that are affected and nothing else.
2. Too much detail. Yes, I know it sounds like a contradiction to what I wrote in the "like" part of this review, but there were some parts of the novel, such as when a character was being introspective, where it simply got to be too much for this reviewer. C'mon! Let's move the plot along! Don't take 10, 15 or 20 pages detailing a character's (or group of characters) thoughts on a single issue, like, say, the development of a new type of cannon or gunpowder!
WHAT I HOPE FOR
1. "Armageddon" is but the first novel in a new series, judging from its jacket and whatnot. With this in mind, I sure as heck hope it won't be another four, six or eight novels before humanity gets back to 21st century technology and, beyond that, another 10, 12 or 14 novels before they're able to take on and (hopefully) defeat the Gbaba Empire. If that's the case, Weber, odds are I won't be along for the ride.
In closing, this new series by Weber has a great deal of potential. In fact, awesome potential. "Armageddon" only scratches the surface of the aforementioned potential (and it's pretty good). That said, don't drag the series out. That'll kill whatever potential there is, in my humble opinion.
M. Keck
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
35 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Nothing new, but well put together, January 9, 2007
This book has a lot in common with Weber's Children of Empire: Both feature high-technology protagonists marooned on a more-or-less medieval planet where the only remaining high technology is treated as divine and used to prop up a monolithic organized church, which inhibits further technological progress theologically and culturally. Amidst this, both books involve the protagonist(s) inserting themselves into the most philosophically progressive country around, with fairly predictable results.
That said, Weber remains an interesting writer with a strong sense of imagery. The characters tend to group pretty easily into omni-competant moral paragons versus backstabbing morons, but frankly, the book is just so much fun to read that it doesn't matter. If you like Weber's style, naval combat with a twist, or plots of this general template, this is a book worth reading. Otherwise, it may leave you fairly cold.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
107 of 137 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
WEBER IS GETTING REALLY SLOPPY, September 3, 2007
My wife and son and I love David Weber, but this is one of a number of recent very disappointing books that have taken Weber off of my family's "automatic buy" list. Although Weber's action scenes are as good as ever, Armageddon Reef just doesn't work. The plot holes are gaping and intrusive and the stylistic defects are annoying enough to detract seriously from the story.
The worst plot hole is Merlin, the AI/android who is the story's protagonist. We are supposed to believe that mankind has been locked for centuries into a desperate life-and-death struggle against a large, implacably hostile, but only slightly more technologically advanced civilization. Furthermore, these aliens do not innovate at all; their tech base is completely frozen. Obviously, humanity's only hope is to force the pace of science and technology development.
At the same time, we are told that humanity has the ability to produce AIs that duplicate in every way the minds, memories, knowledge, and abilities of specific living humans. Merlin thinks, feels, and acts in every way like the real person he is based on, except that he has superhuman strength, reflexes, and mental processing speed.
So of course, in these desperate circumstances, mankind would use this technology to replicate its leading scientists, engineers, technicians, and military cadres, vastly multiplying the productivity of its R&D efforts and making it much easier to staff its star fleet. Need a dozen Einsteins? You got 'em. Need 20 copies of your greatest fleet Admiral? No problem. Need 600 starship engineers, all with the knowledge and abilities of the greatest starship engineer available? Coming right up! Oh, yes...the copies think and act faster than the originals, never need to eat or sleep, and never get fogged out by fatigue or distracted by bodily aches and pains.
Um, no. Weber tells us that this technology is used ONLY for RECREATIONAL purposes! We are supposed to believe that the human race would let itself be wiped out rather than make use of a technology that could easily multiply its scarcest intellectual resources a hundred-fold. Nor are there any ethical considerations that would explain it. After all, this is the same society that creates a secret colony by MIND-WIPING tens of thousands of colonists. Apparently they have no problem with the idea that desperate times require desperate measures.
I'm as willing as the next SF lover to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, but the conventions of SF require that the impossibilities at least be logical and internally consistent. This is neither. It's just plain dumb...sloppy, self-indulgent, contemptuous of the reader, and DUMB.
There are other gaping plot holes, but compared with that one they seem trivial.
The worst stylistic problem is Weber's treatment of names. The book is written in early 21st century English. All of the place names are written normally. Yet ALL of the character names (except Merlin's) are bizarrely transliterated, using a pseudo-phonetic spelling. Weber takes normal names, substitutes vowels & consonants at random, adds H's, turns many different vowels into Y's, and changes J's, G's, S's, Ch'sand Sh's into Z's & Zh's.
Coupled with Weber's continued obsession with giving half of his characters "J" names, the result is hopelessly confusing. John becomes Zhan, Gerald becomes Zherald, Jason becomes Zhasyn, Janet becomes Zhanayt, Jennifer becomes Zhenyfyr, Jim becomes Zhym, James becomes Zhames, Jeeves (a valet - I kid you not!) becomes Zheevys, Jasper becomes Zhaspyr, Jack becomes Zhak, Joseph becomes Zohzef, Joshua becomes Zhoshua, Jacob becomes Zhaikeb, Johnson becomes Zhansan, Jepson becomes Zheppsyn, Jessup becomes Zhessyp, Jolson becomes Zhoelsyn, George becomes Zhorzh, Samson becomes Zahmsyn, and so on.
There is absolutely no justification anywhere in the book for the altered spellings. In fact, given that the colony world starts with an absolutely universal culture and language and that writing everywhere remains stable and uniform, the idea that the spelling of names - and ONLY names - would have drifted this far is patently absurd.
In addition, the proliferation of unintelligible but very similar names, loaded with Z's, H's, and Y's, balks the reader at almost ever line, utterly ruining the story continuity. I particularly treasured one section in which two minor characters named Zhaspahr Maysahn and Zhames Makferzahn - or is it Zhames Maysahn and Zhaspahr Makferzahn? - spend 3 pages talking and it is virtually impossible to tell them apart or to remember afterward who was a spy for whom.
Any author who creates a sprawling novel with many major and minor characters needs to give careful thought to naming his characters in ways that help the reader tell them apart. Making it this hard for the reader is either extremely sloppy or arrogantly insulting. The attitude it conveys is, "I'm so great I'm above the rules. I can shove any stupid thing down the reader's throat and get away with it." This attitude was evident in the later Belisarius novels and has become blatant in Armageddon Reef and Hell's Gate. Much as I love some of Weber's books, he's starting to remind me of another beloved author, Robert Heinlein, whose output became increasingly undisciplined, self-indulgent, and forgettable once he reached superstar status.
I would not recommend this book to anyone but a die-hard and completely uncritical Weber fan.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
