Just having re-read the early Stackpole stuff (Warrior) and having read it in English for the first time - I don't share most peoples hatred for Stackpole. I started out with Sowrd and Dagger and then worked my way chronologically through the novels. In comparison its pretty much all the same: Ardath Mayhar, Bob Charette, Mike Stackpole - all pleasantly shallow written, all characters somewhat two dimensional cardboard cutouts and well readable.
As far as game related fiction goes, this early stuff beats about 80% of what was published for other games (including D&D and Shadowrun). Its somewhat epic and it keeps important people in focus on a detail level that is utterly unbelievable - but so is the whole Universe. If I want grim and gritty, with believable, multi faceted characters facing real struggles, I will sure as hell not turn to game related military sci-fi.
Could the books be written better? Sure. Do they ruin the past of the Universe in their not-awesomeness? Not for me. We read a soap opera here - all the way through the civil war, its a soap opera - Guiding Light couldn't be different. And I admit I enjoy it - not for being the greatest novellisations of a war ever written but for being entertaining and pleasantly shallow while mouthfeeding my background tidbits of a beloved universe.
@Archon: Such as Clovis and his Mother in the warrior trilogy? Kai Allards future wife in Blood of Kerensky? Yes, some of the worst political schemers are carricatures, others are less- btw. Romano Lia was a Mechwarrior - still a Villain. If any obvious lines are to be seen its more along the lines of Military = Good - Politicians = Evil. And the only good politicians are former military forced to rule (Kat Steiner, Hanse, Theodore etc.). But that theme isn't originating with Stackpole but rather a trope of the genre military sci-fi (the honor harrington novels spring to mind).