Narrow the questions on the left by selecting a book series or specifying a keyword.


Frequently Asked Questions

Perhaps it is because of the nature of the books that David writes, perhaps it is because David Weber's fans are unusually dedicated and inquisitive... but it seems that everyone has a question! Here are a few that David finds he gets asked most often.

If you have a question that you would like to see considered as a FAQ, please e-mail us at Responses will be posted if and when David can get to them. We'd love to hear from you! 

Series Question Posted
General Why do you write so much about empires or monarchies? (Asked Wed Sep 04, 2013) December 2013

I've had people comment on this before. There are several reasons I tend to write about empires and kingdoms, but please note that even most of the monarchies I write about (at least approvingly) have both input from those governed (which may or may not be called a parliament) and a means whereby an incompetent/corrupt monarch may be removed. I also write about monarchies/empires in transition towards other forms of government quite a lot, as well.

Historically, monarchy has a much longer track record than democracy, and outside a high-bandwidth society, real participatory government on a nationstate level is pretty thoroughly impractical. Note that in this case I'm using "bandwidth" in a rather sweeping sense which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with electronics. Electronic communication interfaces are good, but what I'm really speaking of here is a broad-based educational system and widespread news availability. Obviously it's possible for people to vote without possessing --- or availing themselves of --- either of the above (as some recent US elections demonstrate, whichever side of the political aisle one might be on), but the intelligent, effective use of the franchise means that the voters have to be at least reasonably well-informed upon the issues facing them (in a direct democracy) or their elected representatives (in a representative democracy). You don't get that sort of voters if the information they need isn't available to them, and that requires both sufficient education to access information and set it in a coherent context and avenues by which that information can reach them in the first place. While I can get seriously pissed off with the gentleman (and gentlewomen) of the Fourth Estate, widespread, open, and at least reasonably honest news reportage is essential to a functioning elective form of government.

Direct democracy begins to break down very rapidly once one gets beyond purely local government. Athens, so frequently referred to as the mother of democracy, had a very limited franchise and was not a very large social entity, whether in terms of population or geographic extent, compared to the vast majority of modern nationstates. In addition, whatever their other advantages (and I grant that the advantages are legion), elective forms of government tend to be less efficient in the face of an emergency than monarchial ones. Mind you, there's something to be said for governmental inefficiency under normal circumstances, given that government inevitably accrues all of the power it can. This isn't necessarily because the government in question is inherently evil, either. A government's job — its entire reason for being — is to govern, and it seeks the tools and authority it needs in order to accomplish that task. (The fact that governments tend to be made up of fallible, corruptible, and often corrupted human beings who seek power for reasons of ego, personal wealth, or any number of other regrettable motivations only makes a potentially bad situation worse in that respect.) However that may be, in times of great emergency, successful democratic/representative governments tend to adopt rules and procedures which vest enormous power in the state's executive with the understanding (or at least the hope) that the power in question will be returned to the electorate and/or its representatives once the emergency passes. And the reason they do that is because there isn't time for reasoned debate and to seek parliament/congress' approval of every decision or action.

One-person rule is more efficient (note that I did not say it was necessarily better) than a representative democracy, and a representative democracy is more efficient than a pure democracy. I think it should be evident that the empires and monarchies of which I write approvingly are generally constitutional monarchies with a powerful representative element. It should also be noted that I also write rather approvingly of representative democracy in general. The restored Peoples' Republic of Haven in the Honorverse is one example of that, I would say. So are quite a lot of the system and planetary governments in the Honorverse. Both the Protectorate of Grayson and the Star Kingdom of Manticore became monarchies for quite different reasons, but the trend even in both of those star nations is towards increasing representation. The Solarian League, on the other hand, is an example of one type of façade democracy, while several of the pre-annexation governments in the Talbott Cluster were examples of other sorts of façade democracy is.

From a literary perspective, there are some significant advantages in writing about monarchial governments, of course. It allows the writer to focus more directly on individual strong characters whose decisions have immediate impact and who become personally responsible for the outcomes of those decisions. It's clearly not impossible to come up with characters and situations where both that focus and that responsibility can also be achieved in non-monarchial systems, and I've done that, too. For example, Eloise Pritchart in the Republic of Haven has to work within the constraints of a representative democracy. It's easier and "cleaner" (at least in my opinion and experience) to work with someone who is expected by both his/her fellow citizens and by the reader to be able to make, implement, and "own" critical decisions of state quickly and on his/her own recognizance, however.

In a more general sense, I tend to believe that the jury is still out on the longevity, effectiveness, and universality of representative/democratic government. I happen to think that that type of government offers the greatest opportunities politically, economically, and in terms of "quality of life" to its citizens, but monarchies and empires of one sort or another have been around far longer and one need not look far to find autocracies masquerading as democracies all over the world today. I'm inclined to think that if/when we finally do get to the stars, effectively monarchial governments are likely to reemerge, although in the Honorverse I've tried to present specific reasons for their reemergence. In the case of Manticore, as a deliberate move by the original colonists to conserve their political power in a star nation which of necessity was about to absorb a huge influx of newcomers. In the case of Grayson, as a response to the critical survival imperatives of a rather intensely hostile environment. There could be any number of other "legitimate" reasons for that sort of transformation, and there could also be an even greater number of "illegitimate" reasons, including an unscrupulous political leader who seizes absolute power and makes it stand up. Four or five generations later, the descendents of even the most unscrupulous political leader imaginable may actually have become enlightened rulers with the best interests of their subjects in mind, whereas after the same time period, the descendents of even the most enlightened ruler can have become despots concerned only with their own self-interest and the preservation of their own power. Which way it goes in a specific literary universe depends on the story the writer wants to tell. In real life, the reasons and the consequences can be far messier and more painful.

I expect that most people have a tendency to subconsciously assume that the form of government under which they were born and raised is the inevitable, default form of government. We assume the permanence of what are actually transitory, perpetually evolving forms of government. Someone living in the United States of 1800 would be shocked by the power of the central government in the United States of 2000. For that matter, the changes in power structures, centers of authority, and routine government interference (for good or ill) in the personal lives of US citizens between 1950 and 2000 are enormous. They've happened so gradually, however, that the majority of American citizens take them for granted without ever really thinking about how transformative they've actually been. I try in my writing to show that evolutionary process in progress, and the truth is that most of the forms of government — and most of the specific governments — I write about are constantly in the process of becoming something else.

General Why is David split between 2 publishers? (Asked Sat Sep 03, 2011) December 2013

Baen pays me just fine, thank you. [G] The problem was that at the moment I needed to get some cash in the door, Jim Baen was already about as committed to DMW as he could get. I have (literally) a couple of dozen books currently under contract to Baen, which is a really nice situation to be in. Most authors aren't fortunate enough to have that sort of job sewcurity! But when the Tor deal came up, Jim Baen actually played rabbi with Tom Doherty for me to make the deal work. This was in no wise a case of Tor buying me away from Baen; it was a case of my finding two publishing houses that I can work with simultaneously without anyone stepping on anyone's toes.

General How do I set up my e-reader to get electronic books from Baen? June 2011

David's releases from Tor and Baen can be purchased from in the Kindle store as well as other websites that host e-reader downloadable formats.


You can actually buy all of David’s books from Baen Books in Kindle friendly, downloadable formats, as well as download from the Baen Free Library. Go to:


for complete information on how to download books to your e-reader.

General Would you be willing to read the fan-fic I've written? Can I post it to the forums? January 2011

From David, posted to a forum:

Fanfic poses all sorts of problems for an author, and not just of the "how dare you publish in MY universe" sort of hurt feelings.

   As Mike pointed out in his post, it leads to a situation in which an author can be accused of "ripping off" someone else's idea, which can both impugn his/her honesty and even lead to ugly courtroom scenes as some non-pro attempts to sue because his or her original idea was "stolen" by a pro. (This has actually happened.) It would also be possible for a pro actually TO rip off an idea, perhaps without even realizing that he or she has done so. (I have never seen any actual documentation of such an event, but I HAVE seen a couple of stories, by authors who shall remain nameless, in which I personally suspect that that is precisely what happened.)

   Even more importantly, the publication (even in electronic form) of fiction based on a writer's work, without the specific, documented permission of said writer (on a case-by-case basis) can void the writer's copyright. This has actually happened, and does not represent mere paranoid fantasy on my part. Nor am I the only writer concerned about it. Misty Lackey, for example, has a legal contract form drawn up which anyone publishing fanfic in her universe(s) is required to sign and return to her before they may use any of her material. (I have a copy of it thumbtacked to my wall for use as a model if I ever decide to go that way.) Anyone who publishes WITHOUT said signed contract is in violation of her copyright and she will, if it comes to her attention, take legal action against them. (Mind, I suspect many authors in such a position might take some pains to avoid having the unapproved fanfic come to his/her attention if he/she believes the fans' intentions were pure, but there is a limit to how many times someone can look the other way and still convince a judge, at need, that his/her ignorance was genuine.)

   I deeply regret that this should be the case, as fanfic is often at least as imaginative and enjoyable as anything the writer who created the character/universe/whatever is likely to turn out. It is also rather flattering to an author to know that other people want to come over and play at his house, as it were. Unfortunately, the situation has become such that a writer cannot allow the free use of his universe without risking the loss of his own rights to it, and so I must regretfully ask that no fanfic appear on this group. Should that happen, I would have only two choices: (a) to take legal action (which I would hate to do and would endeavor to make as painless as possible for all concerned), or (b) leave the group and not return, as the only way I could avoid taking legal action NOW and still be in a position to defend my copyright down the road at need would be to avoid learning that the fiction was being published, electronically or otherwise. Since I would like to lurk and keep an eye on what's happening whenever projects (and things like weddings and house buying expeditions) allow me the time, I would very much appreciate it if it didn't happen here.

   Again, my sincere regrets at having to take this position. I checked with my attorney when the matter first came up for me a couple of years ago, however, and he confirms what Baen, Misty, Roger Zelazny, Fred Saberhagen, and several other pros had all told me on previous occasions. With that much experienced opinion on one side of the question, I see no choice but to believe they know what they're talking about.

   Take Care,

General Okay, we love David's work and we would like to invite him to be our guest at a Sci-Fi Con/Book Fair/Writing Conference/etc. What do we need to know and who do we need to talk to? January 2010

Due to David's writing schedule and having 3 kids, he is only able to do about 5-6 events a year, including the events that his publisher requests. We are always glad to consider your convention, but currently we are booking about two years ahead for cons. E-mail with all of the pertinent information, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible!

General What is the favorite of your own books? May 2009

Oh, no!

          You're not getting me into that trap. First, because asking someone to choose between his own books is like asking him to choose between his children. And, second, because whatever my answer might be today, it would almost certainly be different tomorrow. There are books which I consider to be weaker and books which I consider to be stronger, but the truth is that my "favorite" changes as my mood, my energy level, and my personal interests change. So this is one question I genuinely can't answer.

General Who is your favorite science-fiction author? May 2009

I really can't answer this one. There are entirely too many writers whose work I currently enjoy or whose work I have enjoyed enormously in the past. I can tell you that writers who clearly had a formative impact on me included Robert Heinlein, H. Beam Piper, "Doc Ed" Smith, Isaac Asimov, Andre Norton, Keith Laumer, and Anne McCaffrey. I learned different things from each of them, of course, and I think that the influence of some of them is probably more readily apparent to a reader than the influence of others. Other people I read and greatly admired in my "formative years" included Theodore Sturgeon, Roger Zelazney, Poul Anderson, Mack Reynolds, James White, John Campbell, Jack Williamson, and quite a few others.

          It's harder to pick favorite authors out of the folks who are writing now, and I am ashamed to say that part of that is because I have so much less time to read than I used to have. Back in the "good old days" (as it were) I tended to polish off at least one novel a day. These days, I'm using up all that "literary energy" writing instead of reading, which is probably my greatest regret as a negative consequence of the success of my own books. I tend to grab books here and there, devour them, then fade back into writing mode, and that leaves me with a sort of . . . out of focus sense of what I've read. There are people who I enormously enjoy reading -- Walter Jon Williams, Steve Stirling, Jon Ringo (when I'm in the mood for a lot of bloodshed), Greg Benford, Patricia McKillip (I think she's one of the finest stylists writing today), Jim Butcher, Katherine Kurtz, Emma Bull, and the list goes on and on. All of them are damned good, and rather than picking an absolute favorite, I tend to just be glad there are so many of them!

          Having said all of the above, I have to admit that I think probably the writer who had the greatest single influence on me in a great many ways (although it took me a while to realize this) was Anne McCaffrey. I'm not trying to downplay the effect that E. E. Smith had on me when it came to giving me a taste for space opera, but it was Anne who truly made me appreciate what goes into successful "world building." I was (I know Anne will forgive me for admitting this) in high school when I read Dragonflight in its original serialized version, and I was deeply impressed by the sense of realness she had managed to give Pern. It was the first time that I'd really sensed the texture of a literary universe, become aware of all the little things that had to fit into place, how a writer had to be careful about making sure that the cultural references of her literary creation remained internally consistent and coherent without slipping into the cultural references of her readers' "real world" experience. There was a real, live planet, with its own indigenous societies and political institutions and histories and art, and when I began to write myself, I realized that all those little bits and pieces had to be fitted together properly. So, in a very real sense, Anne is the literary grandmother of the Honorverse, because she's the one who gave me my own taste for world building in the first place.

          I'm glad that I finally figured that out, and that I had the chance to tell her that. And if anyone out there hasn't read her Pern novels, rectify that fault immediately!

General When do you write? How do you write -- are there any tricks you use? May 2009

Well, with three children, writing time (or any other kind of time) is clearly at a premium.

          I do the most productive of my writing, on average, in the middle of the night. I work till roughly dawn, take the kids to school, then turn in, sleep until early afternoon, get up, get my circulatory system moving, and head out to the office for a couple of hours until supper. Most nights, Gena or I fix supper (I'm the cook, but she helps when I'm busy), then I spend a couple of hours with the kids and Sharon, supervise bedtime prayers, kiss Sharon, and head back out to my office to work again.

          When a book is going really well, or when I'm really pushing a deadline (the two are not always identical, unfortunately), I tend to work longer hours on shorter sleep. In those cases, I'll work three or four hours (minimum) during "normal" working hours, then go back to work in my usual night owl mode. When a book is coming together properly for me, I'll usually hit between 5,000 and 7,500 words a day. The most I've ever done in a single day was around 39,000 words (after which I went and slept for two days), and I did the entire original Path of the Fury in only nine days. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I finished editing and tweaking in only nine days; the entire project took the better part of a month. Still, that was working in what they call a "white hot heat," and I've never had that particular experience again. In fact, that's one reason why I hesitated so long before doing the prequel to that novel. I knew I wasn't going to have that same experience all over again, and I was afraid that the energy level of the prequel would suffer because of it.

          I don't know that I have a lot of "tricks" that I use when I write. There are things I've learned about myself over the years that helped me through rough spots and potholes, and I've discovered just how useful the Internet is when you find yourself suddenly forced to do a little extra research.

          I suppose the biggest single change in the way I work came about eight years ago when I broke my right wrist into 57 pieces. The doctors put it back together again with two plates, twelve screws, and six pieces of wire -- to which I have since added bone spurs and early onset arthritis. These minor "improvements" to the joint that nature intended me to use have had a significant negative impact, shall we say, on how long and how hard I can type (or sign autographs, for that matter) before the hand and wrist give out on me.

          Because of that, I've been forced to go to voice-activated software. In fact, I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking. There are some distinct problems with using voice-activated, some of which are simply irritating and some of which get considerably worse than that. There are, however, two enormous advantages. One is that I can continue to work, which I probably couldn't if the only option I had was working on the keyboard until my bum wrist locked up. The second is that even though it's necessary to stop and correct errors which have been introduced by the voice-activated fairly frequently, it's also possible to dictate at better than 200 words a minute. Nobody I am familiar with can actually write at 200 words a minute for more than brief spurts, but the fact is that I believe my output has gone up considerably simply because of the speed Dragon makes possible. If you have the patience to deal with the foibles of the software, learn how to make it work for you instead of tripping you up, and get comfortable with it, it definitely becomes a speed multiplier, and any production writer will tell you just how important that is.

General Why do you do collaborations? What are your criteria for collaborations? May 2009

I do more collaborations than some writers, less than others.

          As a general rule, I won't do a collaboration just to increase "product," nor will I do one that I'm not going to be fully involved with. If my name is going on the cover of a book, then I'm going to be directly involved in producing what goes between the covers.

          Just about every collaboration I've done has been done because I believed that the final product would be stronger in some ways than either of us would have produced on his or her own. The fact that the final book will be stronger in some ways doesn't necessarily mean that I expect it to be stronger in all ways, but it does mean that my collaborator and I are each going to be bringing different strengths to the table with us.

          I'll do collaborations whenever I think it's going to be a case of combining strengths, rather than reinforcing weaknesses. And I'll do them when I think I can learn something or perhaps teach something along the way. Actually, I'm constantly learning something new even when I do solo novels; when I get a chance to work "inside someone else's head," as it were, the opportunities to learn and improve my craft as a writer are much greater.

          I have to admit that another factor in my deciding to do collaborations is sometimes to tell stories I wouldn't have time to tell entirely on my own. In that sense, I suppose, you could say that I was collaborating with someone else to "increase product," but there's a difference between simply trying to get word count out (and separate your readers from their hard-earned money) and working with someone else to tell a story that you really, really want to tell it simply don't have enough time to tell entirely on your own.

          The Hell's Gate novels are a case in point, and, to be honest, I was unfair to Linda Evans when I started the project. I thought I was going to have a lot more time to devote to it than I turned out having, and I pulled her with me into a series that I simply haven't been able to get back to. Linda brought exactly what I wanted her to bring to the project, but the story is important enough to me that I really need to be hands-on with it at all stages, and I simply don't have the time to do that right now. I should have realized that I wouldn't, and I should have refrained from launching yet another series.

          At the same time, this is definitely a series I intend to get back to as soon as humanly possible. I love the storyline, Linda and I have put a lot of thought into where the series needs to go, I like working with her, and this is a story I've wanted to tell for the next best thing to 20 years. The problem, of course, is when "as soon as humanly possible" is going to come, and all I can say in this case is that I hope it's sooner, rather than later.


UPDATE, 4/2013: Unfortunately, David and his co-author, Linda Evans, have yet to have the chance to begin the third Hell's Gate novel. David appreciates the number of devoted fans who are still interested in the series, and plans to schedule time to work on it later this year.

General When you going to write another: Mutineers' Moon novel? Bahzell novel? Prince Roger novel? Fury novel? Hell's Gate novel? Out of the Dark novel?  May 2009


          I have this problem. Basically, you understand, it's a problem that comes with its own built-in advantages, but it's still a problem. Put simply, I have more stories I want to tell than I have time in which to tell them. Trust me, that's a much better problem for a writer to have than to have the reverse problem -- too many books he's obligated to write, and too few stories to put in them.

          In answer to the questions above:

          There are at least two more novels to be written in the Mutineers' Moon series. One will be a sequel to Heirs of Empire, and one will be a prequel to the original Mutineers' Moon novel, starting about an hour before that book opens and then following the mutineers down to Earth and up through the Wars of the Roses.

          There are at least two more Norfressa novels which will focus on Bahzell and Brandark and events already set in motion in the four existing novels. Once those are written, I plan on what I think of as my fantasy magnum opus -- currently projected at six volumes (and we saw how well my initial projections worked out for the Honorverse, didn't we?), in which the conflict between Norfressa and Kontovar will finally be brought back out into the open and pushed through to a conclusion. The body count will be high.

          John Ringo and I met at a recent con, and have started talking about what would be needed for the next Prince Roger book. Although we had originally discussed doing a seperate series about Miranda, who started the Empire, both of us like the idea of finishing up the story.

          I am contemplating at least two additional novels in the Fury universe, as well. One of them would be a sequel to Path of the Fury/In Fury Born, with Alicia DeVries, Tisphone, and Megaira working with Ferhat Ben Belkassem. The other would be a prequel, in which a very young Ben Belkassem, fresh out of the Justice Academy and firmly convinced that procedure must be followed if true justice is going to be achieved, comes face-to-face with the situation which compels them to break all the rules in order to survive and get the job done. In short, it would be the story of Ben Belkassem's recruitment into O Branch.

         From Gena: In the Hell's Gate series, there are two more books under contract, but the project is in hiatus while David tries to catch up with his writing schedule. He has told people at Cons that he had no business starting "still another series", but he wanted to tell the story so badly that he bit off more than he could chew. This was actually one of the original series that he pitched to Jim Baen all those years ago, and he's been itching to get it told. It's a good story! I'll let you know as soon as we have something solid about the publication date!

         From Gena: Out of the Dark is currently a stand alone book, which is an expansion of a short story that David wrote for the Warriors anthology, edited by George R. R. Martin. David's editor at Tor likes it well enough that he has asked David to consider expanding it to a series. His writing schedule will determine how feasible that is, but he doesn't have another one planned for 2013.

         More from David: The problem, of course, is when and how I'm going to get around to doing all of the above. The standard joke between me and Sharon is that I'll do them in "my copious free time," but in some ways I'm the victim of my own success. The Honorverse novels have done so well, and have such a large readership, that there's enormous pressure to produce more of them instead of writing anything else, and I think we're headed the same way with the Safehold novels from Tor, as well. Basically, I'm in the position of having to keep both of those series moving along and fitting everything else in around them. This has been a significant problem for me in at least a couple of instances, and it also means that there is a tendency to leave storylines which have reached a satisfactory (or at least semi-satisfactory) resting place alone until I've got time to "do right by them."

          All of which means that I genuinely can't give you anything that would be a remotely dependable schedule for when I'm going to get to all of these projects. The good news is that I know pretty much exactly what I want to do with them when I get there; the bad news is simply finding the time to do it.

- David