NationStates Jolt Archive

I read Dune a little while ago and couldn't figure out what all the hype was about. Here's a breakdown of the reasons I found it so disappointing:

1. Plot. The plot moved in fits and starts, often dwelling far too long on mundane details and racing past important points so fast that the reader couldn't figure out what just happened. Midway through Book 2, an awkward premonitory device is added that has the effect of revealing the outcomes of several events (not to mention the whole book) before they actually happen, killing most of the ensuing suspense. And finally, it just ends abruptly, without having really resolved much. It doesn't even feel like a cliffhanger, just a cheat.

2. Characters. The characters are cardboard cutouts painted either black or white. All the members of House Atreides are perfect goody-two-shoes and everyone who opposes them are villains rotten straight through. The few secondary characters who are neither are generally one-dimensional and serve either to symbolize a single personal conflict or, worse, are merely perfunctory to the plot. Only Paul and his mother have any real human depth to them.

3. Setting. This is the understandably legendary part. The depth and breadth of Frank Herbert's creation still stands as one of the most impressive achievements of speculative fiction, imagined on a scale comparable to that of Middle Earth. A few inconsistencies and implausibilities aside, it is truly well-executed. If anything, the scope and scale of the setting kind of overwhelms the rest of the book; the reader finds him- or herself interrupting the reading to consult the glossary fairly often. Some of the details could have stood to be integrated into the plot rather than relegated to a glossary.

4. Themes. The themes of Dune are interesting, although they tend to be handled with a lack of subtlety (Good vs. Evil, in particular, is applied with a sledgehammer throughout). The most interesting part is the moral evolution of the Fremen.

5. Writing craft. Herbert simply isn't that good a writer. His descriptions, as often as not, fail to create a clear picture of what's actually happening, and his dialogue is pretty much always stilted and artificial. Long passages of what ought to be interesting events are often rendered boring by his artless prose; although there are moments where his writing does shine, they are few and far between.

I'm sure there will be a lot of you who disagree. Defend Dune and help me appreciate it for its hidden merits if and when I decide to give it a second chance.

Its because they predicted the Iraq war, its wierd. :confused:

I couldn't get through the first book. Didn't hold my interest.

Well, you´re nailed the head there. Its the setting that is important. The Dune books have created an entire universe, very well done and very interesting. The universe has depth, culture and personality.

Also, there are so many themes. There is a lot of politics (which usually dont turn up in many books), religion and action. There are so many things its hard to pinpoint something, its one of those books that if you scratch the surface you get nothing out of it. You have to read a lot to understand it.

Oh, also, the story is about the growth of Paul. Its a story about Paul going from a boy to a man.

The sequels and the fictional universe they create are what makes Dune so attractive, their political, economical, scientific, social, and cultural depth are unrivaled.

Wait...you don't like "Ulysses"?

:D

Seriously, I haven't read Ulysses.

If you haven't taken a ride on a worm, you wouldn't understand... http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Fremen.gif

*Snickers* Heh heh, ride on a worm....

If you haven't taken a ride on a worm, you wouldn't understand... http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Fremen.gif

:fluffle:

If you haven't taken a ride on a worm, you wouldn't understand... http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Fremen.gif

youre not wrong.

the first book is brilliant, the rest suck.

*Snickers* Heh heh, ride on a worm....
Aw man! :(

I do not know what this Dune you speak of is.

Wiki is your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)

I do not know what this Dune you speak of is.

1. Plot. The plot moved in fits and starts, often dwelling far too long on mundane details and racing past important points so fast that the reader couldn’t figure out what just happened. Midway through Book 2, an awkward premonitory device is added that has the effect of revealing the outcomes of several events (not to mention the whole book) before they actually happen, killing most of the ensuing suspense. And finally, it just ends abruptly, without having really resolved much. It doesn’t even feel like a cliffhanger, just a cheat.
Paul’s prescience shows the possible futures that emanate from his present actions. IMO this in fact heightens the suspense, as Paul tries to steer away from the Jihad that will arrive from his transformation into Maud’Dib. It’s flipping the normal plot sequence on it’s head.

2. Characters. The characters are cardboard cutouts painted either black or white. All the members of House Atreides are perfect goody-two-shoes and everyone who opposes them are villains rotten straight through. The few secondary characters who are neither are generally one-dimensional and serve either to symbolize a single personal conflict or, worse, are merely perfunctory to the plot. Only Paul and his mother have any real human depth to them.
I’d say that’s a bit unfair. Count Fenring, the Emperor Shaddam IV, Jamis, Stilgar, Faud-Rautha Harkonnen, Princess Irulan Gurney Halleck, Thufir Hawat and Duke Leto Atreides all are far more than one-dimensional characters; Leto, Hawat and Fenring especially.

3. Setting. This is the understandably legendary part. The depth and breadth of Frank Herbert’s creation still stands as one of the most impressive achievements of speculative fiction, imagined on a scale comparable to that of Middle Earth. A few inconsistencies and implausibilities aside, it is truly well-executed. If anything, the scope and scale of the setting kind of overwhelms the rest of the book; the reader finds him- or herself interrupting the reading to consult the glossary fairly often. Some of the details could have stood to be integrated into the plot rather than relegated to a glossary.
I’m used to reading books with source lists, so that particular point didn’t annoy me. But as far as the detail and scope of Herbert’s universe, I won’t argue.

4. Themes. The themes of Dune are interesting, although they tend to be handled with a lack of subtlety (Good vs. Evil, in particular, is applied with a sledgehammer throughout). The most interesting part is the moral evolution of the Fremen.
I’d agree with you here mostly, though the further books in the series deal much more with the conflicts between Paul as Emperor Atreides and Maud’Dib.

5. Writing craft. Herbert simply isn’t that good a writer. His descriptions, as often as not, fail to create a clear picture of what’s actually happening, and his dialogue is pretty much always stilted and artificial. Long passages of what ought to be interesting events are often rendered boring by his artless prose; although there are moments where his writing does shine, they are few and far between.
Pish and poppycock! The descriptions of Caladan and Arrakis are sublime, and the way Herbert portrays individual’s inner thoughts andd schemes are, IMHO, wonderful. They certainly capture my imagination.

I admit the end is rather abrupt, but for me the next book in the series, Dune Messiah has always been a page away. I seriously recommend treating the first three books of the Dune saga as one giant novel, split into three parts. It’s a big read, but greatly improves the experience. The story changes from essentially a novel about a Prince trying to get his kingdom back, to a saga of the rise and fall of a religious empire, coupled with the thoughts and journey of an emergent Messiah.

He approaches different topics in each book. I would advise only reading Dune when you consider yourself mature enough intellectually and can see the bigger picture. Could be 14 or could be 25 for you.


Book 1) Herbert tries to portray the picture of how dangerous it is when a whole civilization is dependent on a single substance that is geographically isolated. One can correlate this to fossil fuels of today, etc..
It also shows how strong religion is or can be, and should never be underestimated.
Also Paul Atreides the central figure of the novel, the chosen one if one wishes to think so, the end product of a genetic programme spanning millenia is born with the abilitiy to see into the past, the present and future all at once. He is the man who can be in all places and yet none. For the Bene Gesserit (an elite witch order which has learned capabilities of controlling the body beyond that of normal humans through various methods, and they learned to see the memories of the women of their past lives, something they said they could never achieve in a man). Paul is the first male to have this ability, he sees the memories of everyone in his bloodline, on top of his prescient ability to see the future. The original aspirations was to have the "Kwisatz Haderach", what Paul is the übermensch, the perfect person so to say made to lead humanity. And put him on the imperial throne and through him rule the universe after their ideas. However Paul came on generation too soon according the masterplan, hence the Bene Gesserit not recognising him as the chosen one.
Paul then later through the help of the Fremen who's history is very intriguing but a bit long to mention here, who see him as their messiah. Paul is able to cut off the most vital substance on which the whole Empire runs. He blackmails the Emperor to abdication through the threat of ending civilization as we know it by destroying all the spice reserves there are. After killing his cousin Feyd-Rautha, and the Emperor Shaddam in self-exile, Paul is the best heir to the throne and becomes crowned Emperor through conquest.
The point of the book is to show how to be able to understand how to destroy something is to control it, Paul knew how to destroy the substance which ran all of civilization and had the tool to do it (the fremen) and so became leader of all humans through his deft political maneuvering.


Book 2) This book is often the most missunderstood by people. The main theme is how men who we might percieve as great are in reality weak and cannot stomach the task awaited by them.
The Fremen legions lead a bloody Jihad killing billions in their quest to cleanse the galaxy and convert all to worship Paul as the Messiah. This novel raises many interesting questions. Paul compares himself to Genghis Khan and Hitler. He says he was the catalysator for all this, but doesn't have the power to stop it anymore. He crumbles under all the pressure.
Destiny wants him to become the God Emperor, combine with the worm, rule humanity with an iron fist for several millenia, fattening them, allowing them to reproduce to unprecedented numbers. And then through his death, the death of a God start the bloodiest war humanity will ever know, Kralizec. The scatterring, so remnants of humanity flee to all corners of the universe, and can never be wiped out by a single event. Permanently securing the fate of humanity into eternity. The visions Paul keeps getting about these futures grow stronger and stronger, but he is too weak.
He doesn't want all the bloodshed. He chooses a different course of action. He cripples the power of the Jihad and stops the senseless slaughter, and forever binds the Fremen loyalty to his offspring by following their tradition to the death. He was blinded in an assassination attempt, however he could still walk and see since he could see the future so he was the blind man who could see. This caused much distress among the Fremen, where a blind man must be sent to die alone in the desert. Paul, after entrusting his children to the Fremen went out to the desert to die. Ending his life according to the histories, the death of the Messiah. Swallowed up by the sands of time back to where he came, to become one with the eternal desert.
This book mostly concentrates on the fact of human weakness, and how not everyone can cope with the tasks put on their shoulders. How one can easily lose control of what one starts. Paul was too weak, but destiny would no be cheated of its Kralizec, great scatterring. Hence Paul instead of what his prescience told him got to his surprise twins, the male one was born to be his replacement to take the role he couldn't. The daughter was meant to be born, whether Paul would have fulfilled his fate or not. But because Paul wouldn't be God, his son would have to take his role.


Book 3) This book is the first book where the main character of the previous Novels, Paul Atreides is no longer the pivotal character. Paul's sister tries to take power and is possessed by one of her previous memories (the overdose of spice her mother took during her pregnancy, led to her young mind being fragily opened to the memories of the past).
Paul's son, called Leto III (Leto the I was Paul's father, and Leto II was Paul's first son who was killed by Imperial troops during the battle for Dune during a raid) matures. He also starts seeing the visions, the golden path. The one his father was too weak to follow. Leto III also possess all the powers of his father, the ability to see the future, past and present. However he decides to fullfill destinies greater plan. He combines with the worm, becoming the God Emperor, he will keep metamorphising in this skin before reaching his final shape. He is now almost indestructible save through perhaps a nuclear device and his life span has increased into the unknown.
About this time, an unknown man appears. A ragged old blind man, the preacher he is called. He preaches against all that has to do with Paul Atreides and his Messiah status. A heretic in other words. By this time a central organised religion has formed around Paul, with him as their Messiah. The preacher rants against this organised religion, drawing large crowds. Alia who is considered a saint by being the sister of Paul, sees this man as dangerous to her. And in the end the preacher is killed by an overzealous fanatic priest. However it is uncoverred as was rumored by some, the preacher, the ragged blind man was Paul Atreides. The mob and crowd goes wild, their Messiah was just murderred before their eyes by the organized Church. They ransack the temples, kill any priests they find, in other words destroy the religion themself, or at least if not the religion the organized structure thereof, because in their hearts Paul Atreides is still their Messiah. The Rioting spreads throughout the Empire. During this chaos, Leto III uses the chaos to break into the chambers of his Aunt Alia who is the regent of the Empire. He kills her, and takes the throne, suppressing the revolts and beginning a great pax romana.
This books shows the dark sides of organised religion. And how destiny cannot be outdone. Despite Paul's best attempts even as the preacher to cry that humans should be their own masters and not slave to some higher destiny manuevering their future. Paul fails in his fight against destiny, his son who accepts his task succeeds and is now fullfilling the golden path.

Book 4) This book is perhaps one of the more intrigueing ones of the series. Here it portrays the role of a God, and how can a God die without taking his followers into death with him? If a God commits suicide will not his followers follow him?
Leto III, now the God Emperor since almost 3000 years is the master over everything with an absolute power. Also known as the Great Tyrant. Even the Bene Gesserit are for the first time in their history the slaves of another person's will. All armies have been eradicated, there is only an all female army which polices the Empire. Through 3 millenia of peace and prosperity the population of humans has increased into the uncountable number. The time of Leto III is ending, however he is in endless contemplation about how to end his rule. He needs the right successor, he runs his own genetic breeding programme. Until he creates Siona, a young girl who he cannot see in his future visions for some peculiar reasons and so knows it is she who will be responsible for his death and lead the path to the final step to the great scatterring the death of the God, him.
This book deals the dilemma of having a totalitarian dictator who led for so many years that humans cannot remember how it was to live without him leading every aspect of their lives. Yet he knows that he cannot live forever, even a God must die someday. The great scatterring starts, many starve, many flee, wars are started by desperate people, more step into ships and flee into the farthest corners of the universe. In the end the goal is achieved, the humans are so spread apart, that a single disaster is no longer able to annihilate them. However as is seen in book 5, during his 3000 year rule, many things Leto III did still affected people countless years later. He built tombs and hidden chambers to be specifically found by certain people later, he could predict the future and know they would cross that way and so know where to put it to ensure that only they saw what he wanted to them to see or have.




The other books I am too exhausted to write about at the moment. Of course this is only scratching the themes the books should follow. I didn't enter the whole significance of Arrakkis and it's evolution and matemorphasis as a planet. Or the complex political, person and entity exchanges. Needless to say Dune is one of the most complex novel series I have ever read.

But in short for those without the necessary attention span;

book 1) addiction/survival on one resource (Spice/ can be understood as oil)
book 2) Character flaws/Human weakness/selfishness (I do what "I" want)
book 3) organized religion/falseness of religion when manipulated
book 4) Deicide/Tyranny/Dictatorship/Pax Romana

I read Dune about three years ago, actually, about my junior year in high school. Thematically, I think I got most of it. What was more of a turnoff for me was some of the flaws in plotting and characterization and the writing style. I might come back to it and read the next three books at some point.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/anderhammer/dunecat.jpg

spice snip
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.


I miss the Firefox extension of the Litany Against Fear. :(

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.


I miss the Firefox extension of the Litany Against Fear. :(

Me too.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

I miss the Firefox extension of the Litany Against Fear. :(
What did it do, exactly?

dunecat.jpg
Hehehe, that is brilliant!!!

What did it do, exactly?
Have a look (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1645/).

Added an option in the Tools menu to bring up the Litany in case you were browsing any scary sites.

However, Firefox 2 doesn’t currently support the extension.

i wouldn't say it's particularly overrated. i've only ever heard it lauded for the setting anyway (by rational people anyway). i know one person who is a bit fanatical about it, but then i find most people who are fanatical about things to be rather odd anyway so i tend to take their opinions on the objects of their fanaticism with a pinch of salt. i've never really understood being into something so much that one would collect all the books/dvds/cds/figurines/whatever and describe something as the 'best ... ever', talking in absolutes perplexes me.

so basically i think it will inevitably be overrated by it's fanatics because that seems to be just what they do. i enjoyed the first book, someday if i come across the next in the series i may read that too.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/anderhammer/dunecat.jpg

Gah! It's a burrito!!!

So basically i think it will inevitably be overrated by it’s fanatics because that seems to be just what they do. i enjoyed the first book, someday if i come across the next in the series i may read that too.
Funny that, seeing as the plot of the saga is largely about Muad’Dib being ‘overrated’ by fanatical followers...

How can anyone not like Dune? It is an excellent book.

I have to admit though that the sequels get weaker not to mention more boring, confusing, annoying and just unenjoyable.

Gah! It's a burrito!!!

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/burito.jpg

Being older than most, here, I read the Dune series as they were being published. At the time, only Heinlein was matching Herbert for sheer immersion. Many future writers were no doubt influenced by the series (William Gibson, for instance), and it's not surprising that Hebert may not seem quite as captivating today. It's called progress. One must always hope that those to come will be better than ourselves, or humanity will flounder.

Ooookay . . . . not really sure that's where I meant to go with this post, but there it is :p

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/burito.jpg

What I Learned In Anatomy, During the Cat Unit
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/anatomyofcat.jpg

Never read Dune, but I saw a couple of movies based on the book. I couldn't figure out either what all the hype was about. Here's a breakdown of my reasons I found it so disappointing:

1. Plot. I agree that the plot skips around, often dwelling far too long on mundane details and racing fast past important points. Later, spooky premonitions are added that reveal the outcomes of several events, killing most of the suspense. The end is OK, but not enough to redeem the spooky unrealistic quality of its beginning.

2. Characters. I agree that all the members of House Atreides are perfect goody-two-shoes and everyone who opposes them are villains rotten straight through. It's true that secondary characters who are generally one-dimensional. The author only gives Paul and his mother have any real human depth and emotion to them.

3. Setting. If anything, the scale of the setting kind of overwhelms the rest of the movie, the plot and the characters almost been a bacdrop to the setting, instead of the other way around.

For science fiction, I still prefer classics from Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, but anything related to Star-Trek not far behind. I always preferred stories where the setting and special effects was a backdrop to the plot and the characters, not the other way around. :)

Never read Dune...
*taps foot*

Funny that, seeing as the plot of the saga is largely about Muad’Dib being ‘overrated’ by fanatical followers...

it's a book that pre-empts and critiques its admirers! :eek: perhaps i have underestimated it, it clearly has a great depth of social analysis to it.

Never read Dune, but I saw a couple of movies based on the book. I couldn't figure out either what all the hype was about. Here's a breakdown of my reasons I found it so disappointing:

1. Plot. I agree that the plot skips around, often dwelling far too long on mundane details and racing fast past important points. Later, spooky premonitions are added that reveal the outcomes of several events, killing most of the suspense. The end is OK, but not enough to redeem the spooky unrealistic quality of its beginning.

2. Characters. I agree that all the members of House Atreides are perfect goody-two-shoes and everyone who opposes them are villains rotten straight through. It's true that secondary characters who are generally one-dimensional. The author only gives Paul and his mother have any real human depth and emotion to them.

3. Setting. If anything, the scale of the setting kind of overwhelms the rest of the movie, the plot and the characters almost been a bacdrop to the setting, instead of the other way around.

For science fiction, I still prefer classics from Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, but anything related to Star-Trek not far behind. I always preferred stories where the setting and special effects was a backdrop to the plot and the characters, not the other way around. :)

Yes, well the 1983 movie probably isn't the best thing to base your opinions on. They changed a fair few things about the plot, including adding an entirely unnecessary subplot about sonic weapons. And they left out quite a lot, including the whole character of Count Fenring. I haven't had a chance to see the mini-series, but I would recommend reading the book if you haven't. There's a lot you miss out on otherwise.

Still, I grew up with the RTS games which take the design of the film, so I imagine it to look like the movie, even though it's not the best adaptation.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/burito.jpg

One day, I shall have stolen all of your cat pics...

Yes, well the 1983 movie probably isn't the best thing to base your opinions on. They changed a fair few things about the plot, including adding an entirely unnecessary subplot about sonic weapons. And they left out quite a lot, including the whole character of Count Fenring. I haven't had a chance to see the mini-series, but I would recommend reading the book if you haven't. There's a lot you miss out on otherwise.
The Weirding Modules were just a way to cut down on time, by removing the Weirding Way subplot (the movie still had to get several hours cut from it, as it is) and to make the Sardaukar/Fremen battles look less like a cheap kung-fu movie.
Still, I grew up with the RTS games which take the design of the film, so I imagine it to look like the movie, even though it's not the best adaptation.
The miniseries is a much better adaptation, but I think the film is good on its own, personally.

Still, I grew up with the RTS games which take the design of the film, so I imagine it to look like the movie, even though it’s not the best adaptation.
It may not be a completely faithful adaptation, but Lynch’s version is a damn good effort. The Baron Harkonnen is one of cinema's greatest baddies.

And you get to see Sting in nowt but some plastic Y-fronts.

Oh, I still like the film, I've got the extended 3 hour cut on DVD, I found it to be a bit of an improvement on the original. I've not read the book for ages though, it must be coming round to be time to read it again. I found it in an airport bookshop in Australia and it kept me hooked on several long plane flights that holiday. ^_^

DUNE is a masterful novel in my opinion

That being said, not everyone will like a book or even a world. No book is perfect, and while there might be flaws in certain areas in the book(s), but I daresay just about 98% of the people on this board do not have the talent to write a novel.

Just what makes any of you qualified to criticise Frank Herbert?

If you are critical of a book because it does not entertain you or interest you, you are on safe ground. Once all of the amateur book critics come out of the woodwork, I get turned off.

If you can do it better then write it, publish it and I will gladly read it.

DUNE is a masterful novel in my opinion

That being said, not everyone will like a book or even a world. No book is perfect, and while there might be flaws in certain areas in the book(s), but I daresay just about 98% of the people on this board do not have the talent to write a novel.

Just what makes any of you qualified to criticise Frank Herbert?

If you are critical of a book because it does not entertain you or interest you, you are on safe ground. Once all of the amateur book critics come out of the woodwork, I get turned off.

If you can do it better then write it, publish it and I will gladly read it.
How elitist!

No-one needs any qualifications to criticise a book, or any piece of art for that matter. Moreover, someone needn’t be able to match an artists abilities for them to be eligible to critique.

Art is subjective, and as such, we all hold opinions and critiques of art. As long as we’re not irrationally dismissing a piece of art (“it’s sci-fi, therefore it sucks”, or something similar), then we’re quite entitled to posit a critique.

I prefer his other works, Particularly the stories he wrote about Jorj X. Mckie, Saboteur Extraodinaire. I'd wanted to hear more about the Bureau of Sabotage, the Calibans, the Gowachin... there was just something more zesty about the BuSab stuff. Dune makes me kinda dozey (well, except the first one).

Oh, I still like the film, I've got the extended 3 hour cut on DVD, I found it to be a bit of an improvement on the original. I've not read the book for ages though, it must be coming round to be time to read it again. I found it in an airport bookshop in Australia and it kept me hooked on several long plane flights that holiday. ^_^

I've always wanted to see Lynch's original 5-hour version, but it may no longer exist :(

Being older than most, here, I read the Dune series as they were being published. At the time, only Heinlein was matching Herbert for sheer immersion. Many future writers were no doubt influenced by the series (William Gibson, for instance), and it's not surprising that Hebert may not seem quite as captivating today. It's called progress. One must always hope that those to come will be better than ourselves, or humanity will flounder.

Ooookay . . . . not really sure that's where I meant to go with this post, but there it is :p

it was profound, don't worry about it ;)

I prefer his other works, Particularly the stories he wrote about Jorj X. Mckie, Saboteur Extraodinaire. I'd wanted to hear more about the Bureau of Sabotage, the Calibans, the Gowachin... there was just something more zesty about the BuSab stuff. Dune makes me kinda dozey (well, except the first one).

Now there was an immersive world that we didn't see enough of. Was there anything besides Whipping Star and Dosadi Experiment?

I’ve always wanted to see Lynch’s original 5-hour version, but it may no longer exist :(
I dunno. I’m a big fan of the film; it reeks of 80s goodness and Lynch’s unique talent. But the 5-hour version was never finished. Much of it is made up of rough takes and unfinished shots.

Anyhoos, Lynch has washed his hands of the project. The studios fucked up the experience too much.

I'm in the 'over-rated' camp myself here.

It ain't a bad book, and the first couple of sequels before the brain-eater got its teeth into Herbert are passable enough, but it always seemed somewhat flawed as an attempt to examine peoples' need for heroes that Herbert sold it as - without the mystical bullshit and the super-powers the novel doesn't work, in fact it can't work. Examining a need for heroes and then giving those heroes special powers which set them apart from any possible existence marks it out as a failure in my book.

Now there was an immersive world that we didn't see enough of. Was there anything besides Whipping Star and Dosadi Experiment?

Couple of short stories. I think BuSab might've been mentioned casually in The GodMakers, though. Been a while since I read that one.

I read Dune a little while ago and couldn't figure out what all the hype was about. Here's a breakdown of the reasons I found it so disappointing:

1. Plot. The plot moved in fits and starts, often dwelling far too long on mundane details and racing past important points so fast that the reader couldn't figure out what just happened. Midway through Book 2, an awkward premonitory device is added that has the effect of revealing the outcomes of several events (not to mention the whole book) before they actually happen, killing most of the ensuing suspense. And finally, it just ends abruptly, without having really resolved much. It doesn't even feel like a cliffhanger, just a cheat.

2. Characters. The characters are cardboard cutouts painted either black or white. All the members of House Atreides are perfect goody-two-shoes and everyone who opposes them are villains rotten straight through. The few secondary characters who are neither are generally one-dimensional and serve either to symbolize a single personal conflict or, worse, are merely perfunctory to the plot. Only Paul and his mother have any real human depth to them.

3. Setting. This is the understandably legendary part. The depth and breadth of Frank Herbert's creation still stands as one of the most impressive achievements of speculative fiction, imagined on a scale comparable to that of Middle Earth. A few inconsistencies and implausibilities aside, it is truly well-executed. If anything, the scope and scale of the setting kind of overwhelms the rest of the book; the reader finds him- or herself interrupting the reading to consult the glossary fairly often. Some of the details could have stood to be integrated into the plot rather than relegated to a glossary.

4. Themes. The themes of Dune are interesting, although they tend to be handled with a lack of subtlety (Good vs. Evil, in particular, is applied with a sledgehammer throughout). The most interesting part is the moral evolution of the Fremen.

5. Writing craft. Herbert simply isn't that good a writer. His descriptions, as often as not, fail to create a clear picture of what's actually happening, and his dialogue is pretty much always stilted and artificial. Long passages of what ought to be interesting events are often rendered boring by his artless prose; although there are moments where his writing does shine, they are few and far between.

I'm sure there will be a lot of you who disagree. Defend Dune and help me appreciate it for its hidden merits if and when I decide to give it a second chance.

Have you really read the books? You don't describe them at all.

Your poll is also lacking as well how bout an "Its a good solid series" or an "other" I mean in the end it is good it is different, is it my favorite? no but it is solid

As for most of your complaints I implore you to re read some of your claims such as the one dimensional characters is just false, from the beginning Paul is a flawed man that is at war with himself and his future to stop the Jihad that he brings about. He is not flawlessly good in any way.

And later in the series characters such as Ferad`an (spelling? I am doing this from memory) when he is at odds with the House Atreides he is shown as an admirable but hard character Just to start with.

that's an interesting point, i think that's what bothers me about the books too. i couldn't suspend my disbelief sufficiently to allow for it.

With the complete weirdness of the worlds surrounding the story it is hard NOT to allow for it personally

I mean if this was something set on earth or with something familiar then yes I would agree completely about the characters. But with the departure from reality for other reasons the charters seem to fit.

I'm in the 'over-rated' camp myself here.

It ain't a bad book, and the first couple of sequels before the brain-eater got its teeth into Herbert are passable enough, but it always seemed somewhat flawed as an attempt to examine peoples' need for heroes that Herbert sold it as - without the mystical bullshit and the super-powers the novel doesn't work, in fact it can't work. Examining a need for heroes and then giving those heroes special powers which set them apart from any possible existence marks it out as a failure in my book.

that's an interesting point, i think that's what bothers me about the books too. i couldn't suspend my disbelief sufficiently to allow for it.

With the complete weirdness of the worlds surrounding the story it is hard NOT to allow for it personally

I mean if this was something set on earth or with something familiar then yes I would agree completely about the characters. But with the departure from reality for other reasons the charters seem to fit.
Added to that the fact that it’s set a good 8000 years in the future. I personally think the abilities of the Bene Gesserit, the Space Guild, the Mentats, etc., fit quite well with several thousand years of mind/body training and drug addiction.

With the complete weirdness of the worlds surrounding the story it is hard NOT to allow for it personally

I mean if this was something set on earth or with something familiar then yes I would agree completely about the characters. But with the departure from reality for other reasons the charters seem to fit.

meh, i've always had a problem with suspension of disbelief. i think it was specifically the far-reaching manipulation of religion and events by the ben gesserit that allowed paul atreides to become a profit/messiah that i found difficult to credit. if that was ever possible i doubt it'd ever be focused on that sort of thing.

Added to that the fact that it’s set a good 8000 years in the future. I personally think the abilities of the Bene Gesserit, the Space Guild, the Mentats, etc., fit quite well with several thousand years of mind/body training and drug addiction.

Not to mention 8,000 years of enforced technological stagnation (with the exception of the Ixians, but sadly they're not expanded upon until far later in the series). They've got a neofeudal society controlled entirely by three main factions...it's a world that really is alien from ours.

Have you really read the books? You don't describe them at all.

Your poll is also lacking as well how bout an "Its a good solid series" or an "other" I mean in the end it is good it is different, is it my favorite? no but it is solid

As for most of your complaints I implore you to re read some of your claims such as the one dimensional characters is just false, from the beginning Paul is a flawed man that is at war with himself and his future to stop the Jihad that he brings about. He is not flawlessly good in any way.

And later in the series characters such as Ferad`an (spelling? I am doing this from memory) when he is at odds with the House Atreides he is shown as an admirable but hard character Just to start with.

As I confessed earlier, I've only read the first book, and that was a couple years ago. I imagine things at the very least get different in the rest of the series (better? worse? I won't pass judgment until I've read them...). I did say that Paul Atreides was a solid character, but most of the supporting players were comparatively shallow and one-dimensional, at most embodying a single conflict. As allegory, it was fairly effective; as storytelling, it was less so. To me, anyway.

Sorry about neglecting the "overall it's solid" option. I suppose that's fairly similar to "on the fence".

Anyone have any nominations for anything that out-Dunes Dune? Anything you prefer?

Not to mention 8,000 years of enforced technological stagnation (with the exception of the Ixians, but sadly they’re not expanded upon until far later in the series). They’ve got a neofeudal society controlled entirely by three main factions...it’s a world that really is alien from ours.
Good point.

And it’s an alien universe without aliens. As far a I am aware, all the races, including those genetically modified, mutated or possessing non-human capabilities, have human ancestry.

Anyone have any nominations for anything that out-Dunes Dune? Anything you prefer?
As far as hugely detailed future universes, I’d highly recommend Ian M. Banks’ Culture saga. It’s a sublime series of novels, with a wonderfully rich and well-thought out universe. Set far in the future, The Culture is an alliance of four or five sentient species and sentient AI, forming a semi-anarchic society. Humans, one of the races of the Culture, have evolved a symbiotic relationship with sentient AI, along with an advanced chemical control system in their bodies. They can, with a mere thought, induce chemical states in their brain, reproducing emotions and the all the varied effects of drugs. Moreover, they can alter the chemical balance in their bodies to such a degree that over a period of around a year, they are able to change sex. Typical human citizens of Culture both father and mother a child.

One of the great things about the Culture novels is the fact they can be read in any order you please. Some stories interact, but you won’t be spoiling anything if you read them out of sync with the publishing order. If you can, I’d highly suggest you pick up copies of Look to Windward and Use of Weapons; which give a good look at the make-up of a typical Culture world and a look at the shadowy organisation of Special Circumstances, respectively.

And it’s an alien universe without aliens. As far a I am aware, all the races, including those genetically modified, mutated or possessing non-human capabilities, have human ancestry.

I think the only aliens are nonsentients; there are a few alien animals in the novel like the sandworm (and I don't remember if the futars were aliens or genetically engineered by the HMs) but no sentients. But there were definitely some species of humans that are alien to what we have now; the Bene Tleilax and the Bene Gesserit had powers developed enough apart from our own to be effectively alien.

I read the first 3 books (I think) a few years ago, was thoroughly impressed. At a similar time, I read the Rama series by Arthur C Clarke, also very good.

Dune is a fairly good read. I wouldn't put it on the top of my list of all time greats. The rest of the series is a waste of paper and ink.

Dune is a fairly good read. I wouldn't put it on the top of my list of all time greats. The rest of the series is a waste of paper and ink.

I really don't agree. I have long felt that Messiah is the best of the sequence, and I honestly believe they were building up to something amazing post Chapter House.

That's the one thing I really regret - that Frank Herbert never completed the series.

I really don't agree. I have long felt that Messiah is the best of the sequence, and I honestly believe they were building up to something amazing post Chapter House.
Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are both excellent, the series gets very weird after God Emperor of Dune.

[QUOTE]That's the one thing I really regret - that Frank Herbert never completed the series.
Hunters of Dune is being written by Herbert's sons(nephews?) right now, looks quite bad to me...

DAng when I first read this I was hoping you were talking about the North Carolina Outer Banks sand dunes. They are moving and eating up everything in its path. hopefully it'll stay that way.. you don't mess with the ocean or it's sand.

DAng when I first read this I was hoping you were talking about the North Carolina Outer Banks sand dunes. They are moving and eating up everything in its path. hopefully it'll stay that way.. you don't mess with the ocean or it's sand.

Okay, here's a perfect opportunity for a Grammar N*zi to step in and make a point. "It's" is a contraction of "it is." Therefore, the above means "don't mess with the ocean or it becomes sand," i.e., it dries up. "Its," without the apostrophe, is posessive. The above then becomes, "don't mess with the ocean or the sand of the ocean," which I believe is what the poster meant to say. So, grammar is important. Without it, meaning is meaningless!

Okay, here's a perfect opportunity for a Grammar N*zi to step in and make a point. "It's" is a contraction of "it is." Therefore, the above means "don't mess with the ocean or it becomes sand," i.e., it dries up. "Its," without the apostrophe, is posessive. The above then becomes, "don't mess with the ocean or the sand of the ocean," which I believe is what the poster meant to say. So, grammar is important. Without it, meaning is meaningless!

Thanks. I've done well(is that the right one or should it be good?) so far this morning.. not saying I always use proper grammAr because I do not.. but after being up all night drinking.. and actually replying to Jocabia .. I think I'm doing pretty damn good. Stuff it.

Thanks. I've done well(is that the right one or should it be good?) so far this morning.. not saying I always use proper grammAr because I do not.. but after being up all night drinking.. and actually replying to Jocabia .. I think I'm doing pretty damn good. Stuff it.

Typical reaction, too :p I don't care if your posts make sense, I just thought you might :fluffle:

the only word that bothers me (just a little bit) being misspelled is lose and loose.

I have no typical reaction on here.. no one really knows me.. and that might be the first time (on here) I've reacted.

I thought it was a good book.

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;12415615]I really don't agree. I have long felt that Messiah is the best of the sequence, and I honestly believe they were building up to something amazing post Chapter House.
Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are both excellent, the series gets very weird after God Emperor of Dune.


Hunters of Dune is being written by Herbert's sons(nephews?) right now, looks quite bad to me...

Brian Herbert is a pedestrian writer; he doesn't have the depth to complete his father's work.

Dune is just as badly written as Lord of the Rings. They're comparable insofar as they're both so hideously dry as to be near unreadable. However, both created a diverse and interesting culture, ecosystem and history. That is their only merit.

Okay then, so what's a better read in your opinion?

What a ridiculously broad question.

Dune is just as badly written as Lord of the Rings. They're comparable insofar as they're both so hideously dry as to be near unreadable. However, both created a diverse and interesting culture, ecosystem and history. That is their only merit.

Okay then, so what's a better read in your opinion?

[QUOTE=Pyotr;12415814]

Brian Herbert is a pedestrian writer; he doesn't have the depth to complete his father's work.

True, although I did like the Legends of Dune series, they at least seem to be able enough to at least complement his work.

What a ridiculously broad question.

Should be ridiculously easy to answer then, shouldn't it?

The Stargate Movie and Dune are on sale on DVD, 2 for $15, i shalt buy me thinks.

As a teenager I found the dune series to be just plain boring, but later in life I thought it was great. However I have always prefered Asimovs Foundation/
Robot/Empire universe, Or Nivens Known Space..

As a teenager I found the dune series to be just plain boring, but later in life I thought it was great. However I have always prefered Asimovs Foundation/
Robot/Empire universe, Or Nivens Known Space..

Bizarre. I always find Asimov's dry grade school writing style to be so massively annoying that after anything longer than a short story I can't face reading another word of it for months.

As for Niven, the Known Space series is good just so long as you know when to stop. Ringworld Engineers is the borderline beyond which you should not venture. The damn fool should have put the 'Down In Flames' plan into operation instead of letting his later works drag down his earlier stuff.

I enjoyed the first book and the second and by the third volume in the series, I found my interest waning. The first one, Dune, was pretty good as I remember it, but the whole series did become a cash cow for Herbert and his family. How many volumes are there now? 100?

How many volumes are there now? 100?

Just like books in the Rama series or Highlander movies, there is only one. Repeat after me, there is only one.

Dune is just as badly written as Lord of the Rings. They're comparable insofar as they're both so hideously dry as to be near unreadable. However, both created a diverse and interesting culture, ecosystem and history. That is their only merit.

The thing to consider about Tolkien is that he was writing LOTR (and even more so the background literature, such as The Silmarillion) to emulate the foundational literature of the British Isles, i.e. Celtic mythology, Norse Sagas, Beowulf, and Arthurian legend. These were written in styles that end up sounding odd to modern readers. A lot of it was the result of his own limitations as a writer (particularly when he was writing the background literature, and parts of The Hobbit are just embarrassing), but much of it was also a conscious stylistic decision on his part. It does tend to somewhat limit the strength of his works as popular entertainment, but in some ways adds to the artistic merit. He was a linguist, after all; his field of study was early languages and literature, and so he went with what he knew.

I couldn't be bothered to read all responses in this thread :o

Suffice it to say that I read the prequel "House Atreides" (I think that was what it was called) and I have to say that it was brilliant.

youre not wrong.

the first book is brilliant, the rest suck.

Odd. My experience was just the reverse.

I thought the first book was decent but nothing great, and I had time on my hands, so I read the second. It was better. Then I read the third, which I liked even more. The fourth and fifth books were fantastic. The sixth was solid, but I didn't think it was as good as 3,4,and 5.

Anyway, on to some general points.

As far as the quality of the plot, it varied from book to book, but overall I enjoyed it.

I really liked the way Herbert handled the themes, myself. The way it dealt with the creation of religion and the problems of religion, the difficulty of the task of integrating religion and politics, the patriarchal and feudal models of governance, the beauty and dangers of evolution and our management of it, the problems of managing a biosphere, the issues of family and personality, the problems of writing history and dealing with government oppression, etc.

Good stuff, if you like a holistic view of humanity's functioning or lack thereof. If you're just looking for a quick read with an interesting superficial plot, don't bother with going beyond the first book.

Odd. My experience was just the reverse.

I thought the first book was decent but nothing great, and I had time on my hands, so I read the second. It was better. Then I read the third, which I liked even more. The fourth and fifth books were fantastic. The sixth was solid, but I didn't think it was as good as 3,4,and 5.

Anyway, on to some general points.

As far as the quality of the plot, it varied from book to book, but overall I enjoyed it.

I really liked the way Herbert handled the themes, myself. The way it dealt with the creation of religion and the problems of religion, the difficulty of the task of integrating religion and politics, the patriarchal and feudal models of governance, the beauty and dangers of evolution and our management of it, the problems of managing a biosphere, the issues of family and personality, the problems of writing history and dealing with government oppression, etc.

Good stuff, if you like a holistic view of humanity's functioning or lack thereof. If you're just looking for a quick read with an interesting superficial plot, don't bother with going beyond the first book.

maybe its because i, like curious inquiry, read the books as they were published (at least the sequels). i loved the first book and was severly disappointed when the second book jumped right over the transition from local messiah to galactic force to be reconded with (i dont really remember where the second book started, i must have read it 30 years ago). i just didnt give a fuck about his sister or anything that happened later. it just didnt interest me.

after a couple of sequels herberts pacing just drove me crazy. he spends the whole book setting up the action that then plays out in the last chapter. (or is it the last 2 chapters? it has been a long time) it got to where it annoyed me more than the continuing story was worth to me.

maybe its because i, like curious inquiry, read the books as they were published (at least the sequels).

Could well be. I know I lost interest in the Wheel of Time series because of how long of a time there was between publishings.

after a couple of sequels herberts pacing just drove me crazy. he spends the whole book setting up the action that then plays out in the last chapter. (or is it the last 2 chapters? it has been a long time) it got to where it annoyed me more than the continuing story was worth to me.

That's actually what I liked about it. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. :)

Could well be. I know I lost interest in the Wheel of Time series because of how long of a time there was between publishings.



That's actually what I liked about it. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. :)

so true.

my son stopped reading wheel of time because jordan stopped advancing the plot. the books keep selling no matter how poorly done they are. a problem with too many popular authors.

*sigh*