Any Dune fans out there?

Home Forums Writer’s Digest Forum Book Discussion Any Dune fans out there?

This topic contains 14 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  emerald 8 years, 9 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #331301

    Balzac61
    Participant
  • #544071

    Balzac61
    Participant

    Just wondering if you’ve read the Dune series of books by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, and what you think of them? Do these measure up to the original series by the old master, Frank Herbert?

  • #544072

    Tracyliann
    Participant

    I’ve finally gotten around to reading the original series (I know, I’m behind the times) and I was planning on reading the books written by Brian and Kevin, but I’ve heard nothing but contempt for their butchery. I’ve just started Children of Dune and I can’t help but think I’ll take anything Dune I can get my hands on. Still, once I’ve finished the original six, I’ll probably read everything else that’s on my shelf before I crack open anything done by the supposed desecrators.

  • #544073

    Mikala Engel
    Participant

    The Dune books written by Brian and Kevin certainly don’t match the orgiginals in any way, but they aren’t horrible. The originals are simply good enough to make these look bad. They are worth reading as a curiosity, if nothing else.

  • #544074

    Balzac61
    Participant

    I finished “House Atreides” in record time–well, according to my benchmark, that is. It was an easy read and not that bad at all. Subsequently, I caught the Dune bug again and started rereading “Heretics of Dune” but had a real difficult time staying with it. So midway, I bailed and picked up Nicholas Sparks’s books instead. I finished 3 of them in 3 weeks. Maybe I’ll try to return to Heretics when I can dedicate more cerebral time to it. Come to think of it, I don’t think I ever got past where I’ve left off when I tried to read it the first time, which was maybe 20 years ago.

  • #544075

    HabeToore
    Participant

    I just started the original series. I saw…and was the ONE person on the planet, I guess, who LIKED the Dune movie.

    But then I read the book. And was enlightened. Now I know why everyone hated the movie. The amazing complexities of the society the author created couldn’t possibly be translated into visuals and conversations; the very heart of the story was left out of the movie. And after finally reading the book, I watched the movie again, and was mortified.

  • #544076

    Ann Emmert Abbott
    Participant

    Dune-crazy here.  Of course the sequels are never as wonderful as the firsts, but those written by Herbert’s son are not bad books.  I love both movies and wish someone would use more of that world for many more Dune movies. I prefer the first, directed by David Lynch.  I’d watch paint drying if Lynch directed the filming.

  • #544077

    cypher
    Participant

    I’ve just finished reading the first “Dune”. It was overwhelming. Was Frank Herbert a psychiatrist?

  • #544078

    Balzac61
    Participant

    Oldtimer – 2009-09-28 7:05 PM

    I’ve just finished reading the first “Dune”. It was overwhelming. Was Frank Herbert a psychiatrist?

    I don’t believe he was trained as one, but he certainly was very interested in psychology, especially in human behavior and the motivation behind it and had studied the topic extensively. Among his many other interests such as language and politics and social studies, first and foremost, he was a keen observer of human behavior–in what people did, not what they said. In my humble opinion, he was close to being a genius overall, and definitely a genius in creating Dune.

  • #544079

    akv5106
    Participant

    I love Dune and personally it is the best Sci-Fi Lit out there.

    I think the best comparsion I ever heard was: Lord of the Rings-Best Fantasy/ Dune-Best Sci-fi

    And the originals are so so good, but I love the new series as well. I do not even consider them all one series really.
    His son and Brian are doing a good job, and yes it is different from Frank, though its not horrid.

    I am just glad someone is continuing the Dune legacy otherwise I feel like there would always be something missing.

  • #544080

    Mikala Engel
    Participant

    I do think the new series is horrible, in comparison with the orginials. Just not very good at all. But if you’re a big enough Dune fan, you almost have to read them.

    My only problem with the original Dune is that it’s called science fiction, but science is pretty much completely absent. Even Dune itself is a scientific impossibility. A world without water would, in about ten minutes, be a world without any oxygen.

  • #544081

    Balzac61
    Participant

    Jamesaritchie – 2009-10-02 4:33 PM

    I do think the new series is horrible, in comparison with the orginials. Just not very good at all. But if you’re a big enough Dune fan, you almost have to read them.

    My only problem with the original Dune is that it’s called science fiction, but science is pretty much completely absent. Even Dune itself is a scientific impossibility. A world without water would, in about ten minutes, be a world without any oxygen.

    Well, Arrakis wasn’t devoid of water. The planet had evolved such that it became a 99% desert planet perhaps, but the Fremen were able to adapt to the climate change and had kept a supply of water hidden away long enough for Muad’Dib, aka Paul Atreides, to change all that.

  • #544082

    Mikala Engel
    Participant

    4luvofwriting – 2009-10-02 11:36 PM

    Jamesaritchie – 2009-10-02 4:33 PM I do think the new series is horrible, in comparison with the orginials. Just not very good at all. But if you’re a big enough Dune fan, you almost have to read them. My only problem with the original Dune is that it’s called science fiction, but science is pretty much completely absent. Even Dune itself is a scientific impossibility. A world without water would, in about ten minutes, be a world without any oxygen.

    Well, Arrakis wasn’t devoid of water. The planet had evolved such that it became a 99% desert planet perhaps, but the Fremen were able to adapt to the climate change and had kept a supply of water hidden away long enough for Muad’Dib, aka Paul Atreides, to change all that.

    Yes, but there wasn’t nearly enough water to maintain an oxygen atmosphere, even for a brief period.  Desert worlds with oxygen simply aren’t possible.  It takes a LOT of water, and surface water at that, to create and to maintain an oxygen atmosphere. 
    Frank Herbert may or may not have known this, probably not because he wasn’t a scientist, and I don’t recall him ever responding to this criticism of the book, but it was pointed out early and often.  There are other science missteps in the book, as well, which doesn’t stop it from being a very good read.  It’s a great book, a great series, but it’s definitely science fantasy, rather than science fiction.
  • #544083

    pkubin
    Participant

    Jamesaritchie – 2009-10-03 1:58 PM

    4luvofwriting – 2009-10-02 11:36 PM

    Jamesaritchie – 2009-10-02 4:33 PM I do think the new series is horrible, in comparison with the orginials. Just not very good at all. But if you’re a big enough Dune fan, you almost have to read them. My only problem with the original Dune is that it’s called science fiction, but science is pretty much completely absent. Even Dune itself is a scientific impossibility. A world without water would, in about ten minutes, be a world without any oxygen.

    Well, Arrakis wasn’t devoid of water. The planet had evolved such that it became a 99% desert planet perhaps, but the Fremen were able to adapt to the climate change and had kept a supply of water hidden away long enough for Muad’Dib, aka Paul Atreides, to change all that.

    Yes, but there wasn’t nearly enough water to maintain an oxygen atmosphere, even for a brief period.  Desert worlds with oxygen simply aren’t possible.  It takes a LOT of water, and surface water at that, to create and to maintain an oxygen atmosphere. 
    Frank Herbert may or may not have known this, probably not because he wasn’t a scientist, and I don’t recall him ever responding to this criticism of the book, but it was pointed out early and often.  There are other science missteps in the book, as well, which doesn’t stop it from being a very good read.  It’s a great book, a great series, but it’s definitely science fantasy, rather than science fiction.

    If you’re going to make that argument, then a good portion of the novels in the science fiction genre would have to be reevaluated.  Look at all the authors that describe fertile small worlds or moon worlds.  Those are entirely scientifically impossible without some type of intervention (e.g. dome habitats, etc.).  And yet, these worlds are described as naturally occuring and the novels maintain their sci-fi classification.

    I’ve never read Dune myself, but from all this discussion, I’ve decided to borrow it the next time I go to the library.  I have seen the original movie and I liked it a lot.  Of course, that may mean very little. 

  • #544084

    emerald
    Participant

    Every time I read Dune, since I was ten, I get a new perspective on it and appreciate new insights. I studied both science and sociology in college, and the strength of Dune (beyond any other sequels, whether by Frank or his son) is in its social, political, and economical content. It’s not one I would read for its realistic speculation on new technologies and applications.

    The way I see it, there are two main sub-categories of science fiction. I personally refer to these as “science fiction” and “science fantasy.” “Science fiction” works fall into the realm of plausibility, while “science fantasy” exceeds the plausible. I don’t use the term “possibility” because we simply cannot know what is actually possible without it being tainted by the goggles of our own level of technology and imagination. Plenty of the science content of Dune is not plausible; Science fantasy are the books in which we must suspend our scientific sensibilities in order to enjoy the reading and appreciate the other assets of the book.

    Hopelessly hopeful — What definition of fertility are you talking about when you declare the impossibility of it occurring naturally on small worlds? Along with this, what prohibits said fertility?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.