Castles in Space
Tony
more modern building materials be more practical?
Sammy Sands
"Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gOOdnfQ8VNue04nW...@giganews.com...
> In Dune, Why did humankind build castles in space? Would the use of
> lighter, more modern building materials be more practical?
Presumably, and mayhap specifically, the building materials were local.
Although, IIRC, there was mention of the massive beams @ Chapterhouse as
being off planet.
>
>
Tony
"Sammy Sands" <wild_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
>> In Dune, Why did humankind build castles in space? Would the use of lighter,
>> more modern building materials be more practical?
>
> Presumably, and mayhap specifically, the building materials were local.
> Although, IIRC, there was mention of the massive beams @ Chapterhouse as being
> off planet.
>>
>>
>
I don't think they built any castles on Chapterhouse, did they?
Freakzilla
> "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, no, no. The beams were brought ffrom another planet.
Stoned in Arrakeen
> In Dune, Why did humankind build castles in space?
>
Hard one, Tones - and I'm not being dirty. I would think for the same
reasons they built them on Earth - to protect their kith, kin and
chattels. I'm not sure what kith and chattels are, though I'm OK with
kin. You know, enemies liked to kidnap and nick stuff, etc, and locking
everything up in a big castle was the solution. Yes; that's the way they
thought.
> Would the use of lighter, more modern building materials be more practical?
>
No way, Tones. It's hard to keep the family silver/virgin daughter safe
if all that's between them and ravishment is a bit of plywood and the
odd sheet of aluminium paneling.
SandChigger
one?
I immediately got this picture of Schloss Neuschwanstein circling
around Uranus...
Raveem
the superposition of the apparently ancient with the futuristic.
Indeed several plot devices were used expressly to ensure this:
- The shield-lasgun reaction allowing hand-to-hand combat to re-enter
human society, as opposed to Star Wars and other SF pew-pew battles.
- The strict feudal Imperial stratification of society, allowing
recognisable aspects to emerge such as family feuds and loyal
henchmen, as opposed to Death Stars and pointlessly anthropomorphic
'robots'. No amount of plasteel and lasguns were worth as much as the
support of one's people (Yueh, Fenring, Duncan).
- Even post-Corrino society maintained inequality and social elites:
as Leto (II) notes when whilst watching farmers taking their
(suspensor-buoyed) wares to market, their ancestors would have done
the same.
In essence, driving home the point that the human condition doesn't
change just because we have technology that would be magic by today's
standards. Rather like today and past times really.
Raveem.
Tony
"Raveem" <rav...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
>I always thought this was one of the more original aspects of Dune:
> the superposition of the apparently ancient with the futuristic.
> Indeed several plot devices were used expressly to ensure this:
>
> - The shield-lasgun reaction allowing hand-to-hand combat to re-enter
> human society, as opposed to Star Wars and other SF pew-pew battles.
You make some great points that I agree with, but for the sake of argument, Are
light saber fights that much different than sword or knife fighting?
>
> - The strict feudal Imperial stratification of society, allowing
> recognisable aspects to emerge such as family feuds and loyal
> henchmen, as opposed to Death Stars and pointlessly anthropomorphic
> 'robots'. No amount of plasteel and lasguns were worth as much as the
> support of one's people (Yueh, Fenring, Duncan).
But still in Star Wars there's an Emperor and a princess.
>
> - Even post-Corrino society maintained inequality and social elites:
> as Leto (II) notes when whilst watching farmers taking their
> (suspensor-buoyed) wares to market, their ancestors would have done
> the same.
>
> In essence, driving home the point that the human condition doesn't
> change just because we have technology that would be magic by today's
> standards. Rather like today and past times really.
>
But doesn't Star Wars make a similar point?
Freakzilla
Um... there's an emperor and a princess in Dune, too.
Raveem
One is about weapons. The other about people and society.
> But still in Star Wars there's an Emperor and a princess.
And charcoal is carbon too, just like diamond.
> But doesn't Star Wars make a similar point?
No. It can't.
Raveem.
Tony
>
> One is about weapons. The other about people and society.
But don't the Jedi represent a culture?
>
>> But still in Star Wars there's an Emperor and a princess.
>
> And charcoal is carbon too, just like diamond.
They're both feudal cultures.
>
>> But doesn't Star Wars make a similar point?
>
> No. It can't.
>
I'm not sure what you mean here. It's true that Star Wars doesn't feature lower
classes. However, there's more to the human condition than class distinctions.
Juho Julkunen
(to...@hotmail.com) says...
>
> "Raveem" <rav...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
> >> Are light saber fights that much different than sword or knife fighting?
> >
> > One is about weapons. The other about people and society.
>
> But don't the Jedi represent a culture?
>
Though arguably the Jedi tried to make them so in episode III.
> >
> >> But still in Star Wars there's an Emperor and a princess.
> >
> > And charcoal is carbon too, just like diamond.
>
> They're both feudal cultures.
Palpatine's Empire is a despotism, not a feudal system. The Old
Republic is a republic, not a feudal society.
> >
> >> But doesn't Star Wars make a similar point?
> >
> > No. It can't.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. It's true that Star Wars doesn't feature lower
> classes. However, there's more to the human condition than class distinctions.
No lower classes? You just pointed out it has an emperor and a
princess. Along with other aristocracy, as opposed to farmers and
smugglers it also features.
--
Juho Julkunen
Bottu Guy
> - The shield-lasgun reaction allowing hand-to-hand combat to re-enter
> human society, as opposed to Star Wars and other SF pew-pew battles.
Besides the Helmholtz shields there is also the Butlerian Jihad, which had
multipurpose robots/computers entirely outlowed and most high tech devices
only available to the elite, the rest of society living basically in
pre-industrial conditions. These are the two devices FH used to make
possible a fictional universe that combines the old (hand-to-hand combat,
medieval society structure, ...) with the new (space travel to exotic
planets,...).
As for Star Wars, I find FH's concept of the shield-lasgun reaction
somewhat as a deus ex machina but still far more believable than the Jedi
Knights intercepting blast weapon bolts with their ligh saber. Why would
people persist in using weapons that are so unefficient (energy bolts move
so slow that you can see them and do not make that much damage, explosive
bullets could do the same or more) ?
Guy Botty
Tony
"Bottu Guy" <gbo...@vub.ac.be> wrote in message
news:hfqqfc$bng$1...@snic.vub.ac.be...
> Raveem <rav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - The shield-lasgun reaction allowing hand-to-hand combat to re-enter
>> human society, as opposed to Star Wars and other SF pew-pew battles.
>
> Besides the Helmholtz shields there is also the Butlerian Jihad, which had
> multipurpose robots/computers entirely outlowed and most high tech devices
> only available to the elite, the rest of society living basically in
> pre-industrial conditions. These are the two devices FH used to make
> possible a fictional universe that combines the old (hand-to-hand combat,
> medieval society structure, ...) with the new (space travel to exotic
> planets,...).
I think it's likely that Castles became popular among the elite after the
completion of the Butlerian Jihad.
>
> As for Star Wars, I find FH's concept of the shield-lasgun reaction
> somewhat as a deus ex machina but still far more believable than the Jedi
> Knights intercepting blast weapon bolts with their ligh saber. Why would
> people persist in using weapons that are so unefficient (energy bolts move
> so slow that you can see them and do not make that much damage, explosive
> bullets could do the same or more) ?
>
Okay, let me ask you this. What use is a shield if someone can shoot you with a
lasgun and create an atomic explosion?
Stoned in Arrakeen
>
> Why would people persist in using weapons that are so unefficient (energy
> bolts move so slow that you can see them and do not make that much
> damage, explosive bullets could do the same or more) ?
>
It's probably the sounds. Guns that fire explosive bullets usually make
boring banging noises that make everything sound like some awful, old
John Wayne movie and make everyone duck and generally get depressed,
while rayguns make cool sci-fi kinda sounds and produce lots of flashing
lights. And more mayhem, which is good.
> Guy Botty
>
Yes. I must say it's a brave man that uses variations on the "bottom"
theme as part of his name. Respect.
SandChigger
> Okay, let me ask you this. What use is a shield if someone can shoot you with a
> lasgun and create an atomic explosion?
It's only the suicide lasgunners you have to worry about with that.
You know, the ones who listen to Wagner and want to take out your
whole city.